Patna High Court

Shaikh Sadat Ayubi @ Mohammad Shaikh Sadat AyubiversusThe State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar,

Decided: 13 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SUDHIR SINGH RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The petitioner, lacking a legally recognized relationship and independent evidence of unlawful restraint, does not have locus standi to maintain a habeas corpus petition for the adult woman, and the writ is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, claiming a consensual relationship with Ms. Neha Parveen, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking her production and police protection, alleging illegal confinement and threats of honour killing by her family. The Court examined whether a third‑party adult in a personal relationship has locus standi to invoke Article 226 for an adult woman’s liberty and whether the petitioner had produced any independent material establishing unlawful detention. Relying on precedents such as Kanu Sanyal and Home Secretary (Prison) v. Nilofer Nisha, the Court held that habeas corpus is limited to cases of detention without legal authority and requires a bona‑fide interest supported by prima facie evidence. Since the petitioner is neither a spouse, relative nor guardian and offered only his own complaints without corroboration, no illegal detention was established. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate under Section 100 of the BNSS for any further relief.

Issues considered

Whether a person in a consensual relationship with an adult woman has locus standi to file a habeas corpus petition under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner has established a prima facie case of illegal detention of the alleged detenue.
Whether the writ of habeas corpus is appropriate to resolve disputes arising from personal relationships and alleged honour‑killing threats.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 100

Subjects

Habeas Corpus
Locus Standi
Illegal Detention
Article 226
Fundamental Rights
Personal Liberty
Consensual Relationship
Adult Woman

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.306 of 2026
======================================================
Shaikh Sadat Ayubi @ Mohammad Shaikh Sadat Ayubi S/o Sheikh Ayub
Islahi @ Md. Sheikh Ayub Islahi R/o Village- Dilgauri, P.S.- SultanGanj,
District- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar, Pin Code

... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, PATNA
2. The State of Bihar through its Home Secretary, Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Governement of Bihar, Patna
4. The Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Bihar
5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur Bihar
6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur Bihar
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Law and Order, Bhagalpur Bihar
8. The Office In-Charge Sultan Ganj Police Station, Distt.- Bhagalpur Bihar
9. Md Ansar Ansari S/o Md Abul Ansari R/o vill - Dilgauri, P.S.- Sultanganj,
Distt.- Bhagalpur
10. Md Siraj Ansari S/o Md Salahuddin Ansari R/o vill - Dilgauri, P.S.-
Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur
11. Md Adil Ansari S/o Md Ansar Ansari R/o vill - Dilgauri, P.S.- Sultanganj,
Distt.- Bhagalpur
12. Arshad Ansari S/o Md Ansar Ansari R/o vill - Dilgauri, P.S.- Sultanganj,
Distt.- Bhagalpur, Bihar
13. Md Humayun Ansari S/o Md Salahuddin Ansari R/o vill - Dilgauri, P.S.-
Sultanganj, Distt.- Bhagalpur, Bihar

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Md Azim Uddin, Advocate
For the Respondent No.10 : Mr. Prashant Saurabh, Advocate
Ms. Jasjit Pranjal, Advocate
Mr. Amrit Jay Kumar Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

2 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
2/10

2. This writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus has been

filed seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) For commanding the respondents to
produce Neha Parveen before this Hon’ble
Court forthwith;
(ii) For commanding the respondents
commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 (State
authorities) to immediately trace, locate, rescue,
and ensure the safety and security of Neha
Parveen, and to produce her before this Hon’ble
Court;
(iii) For issuing a direction commanding
Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 (the State authorities) to
register the F.I.R. of the petitioner.
(iv) For commanding the respondents to provide
police protection to the Petitioner and Neha
Parveen;
(v) To issue appropriate directions to the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to register FIR and
conduct thorough investigation into the illegal
detention, criminal intimidation, threats of
honor killing, violation of privacy, and other
cognizable offences committed by Respondent
Nos. 10 to 14;
(vi) To issue appropriate directions to the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to provide adequate
police protection to the Petitioner and Neha
Parveen from the threats of violence, honour
killing, and murder;
(vii) To declare that the illegal detention and
confinement of Neha Parveen by Respondent
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
3/10

Nos. 9 to 13 is violative of her fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 14, 18, and 21
of the Constitution of India;
(viii) For the grant of any other relief for which
the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the petitioner, are

that he and Ms. Neha Parveen, aged about 23 years, were in a

consensual relationship since September, 2022 and had decided

to solemnize marriage; however, her family members were

strongly opposed to the relationship and allegedly subjected her

to continuous mental pressure, coercion and harassment. It is

alleged that in February, 2024 the detenue informed the

petitioner about her pregnancy, but due to extreme family

pressure and threats, she was compelled to terminate the

pregnancy in March, 2024 against her free will. The petitioner

states that though he went abroad for employment in June, 2024,

he remained in regular contact with her. In January, 2025 her

family members allegedly accessed her mobile phone without

consent and thereafter the petitioner received threats. Upon his

return to India in October, 2025, the detenue allegedly reiterated

her willingness to marry him but informed him on 15.10.2025

that she was being forcibly taken to Mumbai and threatened
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
4/10

with honour killing. It is further alleged that since 17.10.2025

her whereabouts are unknown, her mobile phone is not

reachable, and despite written complaints to the police

authorities regarding illegal confinement and threats to life, no

effective steps have been taken, giving rise to a serious

apprehension that she is under illegal detention and in imminent

danger.

4. Upon perusal of the pleadings and submissions

advanced on behalf of the parties, the core issue that arises for

consideration in the present case is: Whether the petitioner,

claiming to be in a consensual relationship with a major adult

woman and being neither her spouse, relative nor legally

recognized guardian, has the locus standi to maintain the

present writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus for her

production, particularly when no cogent or independent

material has been placed on record to prima facie establish

illegal detention, except the petitioner’s own unilateral

representations to the police authorities?

5. The writ of Habeas Corpus is a prerogative and

extraordinary constitutional remedy available under Article 226

of the Constitution of India to secure the liberty of a person who

is alleged to be under illegal or unlawful detention. The essential
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
5/10

condition for issuance of such writ is the existence of detention

without authority of law. Though the scope of the writ has

expanded over time, its foundational object remains the

protection of personal liberty and not adjudication of disputes

arising out of criminal accusations.

6. The Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District

Magistrate, Darjeeling, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 674, has

authoritatively explained the true nature, scope and object of a

writ of Habeas Corpus. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment, reads

as follows:

“4. It will be seen from this brief history of the
writ of habeas corpus that it is essentially a
procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of
justice, not the substantive law. The object of the
writ is to secure release of a person who is
illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no
doubt, a command addressed to a person who is
alleged to have another person unlawfully in his
custody requiring him to bring the body of such
person before the Court, but the production of
the body of the person detained is directed in
order that the circumstances of his detention
may be inquired into, or to put it differently, ‘in
order that appropriate judgment be rendered on
judicial enquiry into the alleged unlawful
restraint’...”
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
6/10

7. In the opinion of this Court, a Habeas Corpus

petition may, in appropriate cases, be filed not only by the

detenue but also by a third person. However, such locus is

confined to persons who have a close, legitimate and bona fide

interest in the liberty of the detenue, such as parents, spouse or

lawful guardians, particularly where the detenue is a minor or is

incapable of approaching the Court. The locus so recognized is

not unqualified and cannot be extended to persons who neither

have any legally recognized status nor demonstrate any

independent material establishing illegal detention.

8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the

present case, it is evident that the alleged detenue is a major

adult woman aged about 23 years. There is no dispute with

regard to her age. The petitioner himself admits that she is an

adult and was residing with her family members prior to the

alleged incident. Merely because a major woman is residing

with her parents or family members, the same cannot, by any

stretch of imagination, be termed as illegal detention. In the

absence of any material to show that she is being confined

against her will or restrained from exercising her free

movement, the foundational requirement for issuance of a writ

of Habeas Corpus is not satisfied.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
7/10

9. The petitioner claims to be in a consensual

relationship with the alleged detenue, however, he is neither her

spouse, relative nor legally recognized guardian. The

relationship asserted by him, even if assumed to be correct for

the sake of argument, does not confer upon him an automatic or

unqualified right to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of

this Court for production of a major adult woman. The law

recognizes that in appropriate cases a third party may maintain a

Habeas Corpus petition, but such locus is premised upon a bona

fide and legitimate interest coupled with prima facie material

demonstrating unlawful restraint. In the present case, no such

independent material has been brought on record.

10. The documents annexed with the writ petition

primarily consist of representations and complaints submitted

by the petitioner to various police authorities. These are

unilateral communications emanating from the petitioner

himself. Apart from his own assertions and apprehensions, there

is no cogent, independent or contemporaneous material to

indicate that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement by

the respondents. No affidavit of any independent witness, no

communication from the detenue indicating illegal restraint, nor

any other objective material has been placed before this Court to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
8/10

substantiate the allegation of unlawful detention.

11. The Supreme Court in Home Secretary (Prison)

v. H. Nilofer Nisha, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 161, has

categorically held that a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued

unless the Court arrives at a clear conclusion that the detenue is

under detention without authority of law. Para 16 of the said

judgment reads as follows:

“16. A writ of habeas corpus can only be issued
when the detention or confinement of a person is
without the authority of law. Though the literal
meaning of the Latin phrase habeas corpus is
“to produce the body”, over a period of time
production of the body is more often than not
insisted upon but legally it is to be decided
whether the body is under illegal detention or
not. Habeas corpus is often used as a remedy in
cases of preventive detention because in such
cases the validity of the order detaining the
detenu is not subject to challenge in any other
court and it is only writ jurisdiction which is
available to the aggrieved party. The scope of
the petition of habeas corpus has over a period
of time been expanded and this writ is
commonly used when a spouse claims that
his/her spouse has been illegally detained by the
parents. This writ is many times used even in
cases of custody of children. Even though, the
scope may have expanded, there are certain
limitations to this writ and the most basic of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
9/10

such limitation is that the Court, before issuing
any writ of habeas corpus must come to the
conclusion that the detenu is under detention
without any authority of law.”

12. It is also significant that the alleged detenue, being

a major, is presumed in law to be competent to take decisions

regarding her residence and association. Her staying with her

parents or family members, in the absence of clear proof of

coercion or confinement, cannot be construed as detention

without authority of law. The writ of Habeas Corpus is not

intended to resolve disputes arising out of strained personal

relationships or parental opposition to a relationship between

consenting adults. Its scope is confined to examining whether a

person is under unlawful restraint.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish even a

prima facie case of illegal detention. The essential jurisdictional

fact for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, namely detention

without authority of law, is conspicuously absent. The

petitioner’s interest appears to arise out of a personal

relationship, and the present petition, in the absence of

substantive material, cannot be entertained in exercise of

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.306 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
10/10

of India.

14. Accordingly, the issue framed is answered in the

negative. The petitioner, who merely claims to be in a

consensual relationship with the alleged detenue and is neither

her spouse, relative, nor legally recognized guardian, does not

possess the requisite locus standi to invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ of Habeas

Corpus.

15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

dismissed.

16. However, it is clarified that the petitioner is at

liberty to approach before the concerned District Magistrate in

accordance with Section 100 of BNSS.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J.)

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)

Gaurav Kumar/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…