Patna High Court
Ravi Kumar @ Ravi ShankarversusThe State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar, a hardware shop owner, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking the production of his former daily‑wage employee, Mohan Singh, who had been taken into police custody following a complaint by Singh's wife. The petitioner alleged that the investigating officer pressured Singh to alter his statement and that the police, instead of handing Singh over to him, delivered him to his wife, endangering his life. The court observed that the dispute was essentially matrimonial, arising from the complaint lodged by the wife, and that no magistrate’s order existed directing the police to hand Singh over to the petitioner. Consequently, the court held that a habeas corpus writ was not the appropriate remedy in these circumstances. The petition was dismissed and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in a dispute arising from a matrimonial conflict and police detention.
- Whether the petitioner has a legal right to demand the production of the detained individual absent a magistrate’s order.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 140(3), 3(5)
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- matrimonial dispute
- police detention
- illegal detention
- writ jurisdiction
- cost order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.924 of 2026
======================================================
Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Shankar, Son of Shivshankar Chaudhary, resident of
Diwanganj, P.S.- Mufassil, District -Purnea. ... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
Bihar.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea, Bihar.
4. The SHO, Mufassil P.S., Purnea, Bihar.
5. The Investigation officer, Mufassil P. case No. 50 of 2026, Mufassil P.S.,
Purnea, Bihar.
6. Vibha Devi, Wife of Mohan Singh, resident of village- Chanedi Agha Tola,
Ward no. 14, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Purnea.
7. Mohan Singh, son of Late Bhola Singh, resident of village- Chandi Agha
Tola, Ward no. 14, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Purnea.
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md Fazle Karim
For the State : Mr. AC to learned A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
And
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.C. to learned A.G.
2. The petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus for commanding the State to produce the detenu,
namely, Mohan Singh, who is respondent no.7 in this case.
3. On going through the statements made in the writ
application, this Court find that the petitioner is the owner of a
Hardware Shop, namely, M/s S.S. Enterprises, his father is
proprietor of the firm and respondent no.7 used to work there as
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.924 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
a daily wages labourer. Respondent no.7 is said to have dispute
with his wife (respondent no.6).
4. It is further found from the statements in the writ
application that respondent no.6 has filed a written complaint
before the S.H.O. of Muffasil P.S., giving rise to Muffasil P.S.
Case No.50 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of
the B.N.S. During the investigation, the respondent no.7 has
allegedly taken to the police station by the Investigating Officer
(I.O.) of the case on 31.03.2026. It is alleged that the I.O.
pressurized the respondent no.7 to change his statement
threatening him to implicate him in a false case but respondent
no.7 did not change his statement. It is stated that in his
statement before the learned Magistrate, the respondent no.7 has
stated that he was going with the Ravi Kumar (petitioner) on his
own will and volition. The allegation is that, despite this stand
of respondent no.7 in the PR bond, the I.O. did not handover the
respondent no.7 to the petitioner and she acted in connivance
with respondent no.6. It is stated that the I.O. handed over
respondent no.7 to respondent no.6. Respondent no.6 has earlier
made statement that respondent no.7 has some mental illness
and such statements have been made in the media.
5. It is further stated that the petitioner has made
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.924 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
representation in this regard before the Superintendent of Police
but nothing has been done on his representation. He has also
filed a protest petition before the learned C.J.M., Purnea. The
petitioner apprehends that the life of the respondent no.7 is in
danger at the hands of respondent no.6.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that because the petitioner apprehends his false implication in a
case by respondent no.6, after doing some damage to the life of
respondent no.7, he has moved this Court.
7. Learned Assistant Counsel to learned Advocate
General submits that from the facts present in the writ
application itself, it would be evident that there is some
matrimonial discord between the respondent no.6 and
respondent no.7. This is the statement of the petitioner that
respondent no.7 was working at his shop. The matter is sub
judice before the learned C.J.M. and it is the case of the
petitioner that he has filed a protest petition in the Court. It is
submitted that the Writ of Habeas Corpus would not be
entertainable in the facts of the present case.
8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances
of the case and on noticing that the dispute is between the
respondent no.6 and respondent no.7, the police case has been
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.924 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
registered at the instance of respondent no.6 and even as the
petitioner has claimed in his protest petition (Annexure-P-9) that
there is an order of the learned Magistrate to handover
respondent no.7 to him but to no such order has been placed
before the Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that in
this kind of dispute Writ of Habeas Corpus filed is result of ill
advice. This application as framed cannot be entertained. It is
dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand),
which would be payable by the petitioner in the account of the
Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of
two weeks and receipt of the cost shall be filed in the Registry.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
(Soni Shrivastava, J.)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…