High Court of Gujarat

SANJAYBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA MADIYARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: N S SANJAY GOWDAD M VYAS

Holding

The court held that there is no material to show that the daughter is under illegal confinement and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjaybhai Rameshchandra Madiyar, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his daughter Hiral Madiyar was illegally confined by a man named Karan (the fourth respondent). The court examined affidavits and an investigation report from the Anti‑Human Trafficking Unit, which showed that the daughter had voluntarily contacted her father and sister in July 2024, stating she was in Jaipur with Karan and intended to marry him, and that her mobile phone was later switched off. The petitioner’s counsel argued that Karan’s bad reputation and his father’s disowning him indicated illegal confinement, but the court found these assertions unsubstantiated. The court noted that financial transactions were made at the daughter’s direction and that no evidence contradicted her voluntary communication, leading to the conclusion that there was no material to support a claim of illegal detention. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the court directing the police to continue the missing‑person investigation and to act on any new information.

Issues considered

Whether the habeas corpus petition is maintainable on the ground that the daughter is illegally confined by the fourth respondent.
Whether the evidence of voluntary communication and financial transactions negates the allegation of illegal confinement.
Whether the court should dismiss the petition or order further investigation.

Subjects

habeas corpusmissing personillegal confinementanti‑human trafficking unitinvestigationfamily disputemarriage

Judgment

      R/SCR.A/11871/2024                       ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.
                          11871 of 2024

==================================================
                    SANJAYBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA MADIYAR
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR BRIJESH WADHAVANA(3548) for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7,8
MR. NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7,8
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS. MONALI H. BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                    Date : 09/02/2026
                     ORAL ORDER
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)


[1]      Sanjaybhai Rameshchandra Madiyar has =led this petition
contending that his daughter, Hiral Sanjaybhai Madiyar, who is
aged about 26-27 years, as of now, has gone missing. It is the
allegation of the petitioner that his daughter is under the illegal
con=nement of the Karan i.e. the 4th respondent herein.


[2]      This Court has heard the matter on several occasions and
the petitioner was called upon to =le an additional aCidavit, and
aCidavits-in-reply of the investigating authorities have also been
=led. The investigation into the missing corpus was entrusted
to the Anti-Human TraCicking Unit (AHTU), Ahmedabad City


                                 Page 1 of 4
      R/SCR.A/11871/2024                      ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




and the Police Inspector has ultimately =led an additional
aCidavit dated 04.02.2026.


[3]      The said aCidavit indicates that the investigation was
transferred to the AHTU in March, 2025 and on investigation, it
was found that the corpus had left her residence on 12.07.2024
stating that she was heading to Udaipur for work. It is also
stated that on 14.07.2024, between 17:00 to 18:00 hours, she
had contacted her father, i.e., the petitioner, informing him that
she was not in Udaipur for a shoot but was actually in Jaipur
with her friend Karan Pipaliya, and they had gone there to visit
the Mahadev Temple. It is also stated in the aCidavit that on
15.07.2024, she informed her family members that they were
delayed due to the monsoon and on the very same day, she had
also sent a message to her sister Hetvi stating that she intended
to marry Karan and would return after 5 to 6 months once she
was =nancially capable. It is stated that her mobile phone has
since been switched oC.

[4]      The averment that the corpus contacted her father and
also her sister is not in dispute. If these averments are not in
dispute, it goes without saying that the possibility of the corpus
being illegally con=ned with the 4 th respondent is not borne out
from the records.

[5]      Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to
contend that the 4th respondent has bad antecedents, inasmuch
as he has duped several persons, and his father had also

                              Page 2 of 4
      R/SCR.A/11871/2024                       ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




disowned him and issued a public notice. Learned counsel
submits that this background of the 4 th respondent indicates
that his daughter is in the clutches of Karan and, therefore, the
writ of habeas corpus would be maintainable.

[6]      In our view, this assertion cannot be accepted, since the
investigation of the authorities have indicated that the corpus
did get in touch with not only the petitioner but also her sister,
and informed them that she intended to marry Karan and would
return after about six months. It is not in dispute that the corpus
is aged 24 years and is engaged in the business of fashion
design. It is also forthcoming from the record that there are
=nancial transactions and as a matter of fact, the third party has
transferred relatively large sums of money to her father and
sister at the behest of the corpus, much before she disappeared
in July 2024. These facts would also indicate that the possibility
of the corpus being illegally detained cannot be readily
accepted. In our view, the investigation conducted by the
authorities are adequate, and it is clearly emerges from the
record that every eCort has been made to trace the corpus, but
the same has been unsuccessful. The fact that the father of
Karan had disowned him and is also unaware of the
whereabouts of Karan would also indicate that the possibility of
the petitioner's daughter being con=ned cannot be accepted. In
our view, therefore, there is no material placed on record to
indicate that the corpus is under illegal con=nement, and the
petition would therefore have to be dismissed.


                               Page 3 of 4
      R/SCR.A/11871/2024                                              ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




[7]      However, since a missing complaint is admittedly pending
regarding the corpus, it would be appropriate to direct the
police to continue the investigation and make every possible
eCort to trace the corpus as early as possible. If the petitioner
or his family members receive any information regarding the
corpus, they should immediately share the same with the police,
and the police shall act upon such information and take prompt
steps to trace the corpus.


[8]      Subject to the above, petition is dismissed.                                Notice is
discharged.



                                                               (N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)




                                                                             (D. M. VYAS, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KUMAR DHARMENDRA(HC01071), GOV, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/02/2026 15:46:06




                                            Page 4 of 4

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "habeas corpus"Sign in to search