Bombay High Court
DIPAK BALASAHEB DEVKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE DISCHARGED
Holding
The court held that no habeas corpus could be granted as the adult woman was not detained, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, claiming to be the husband of a missing adult woman, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking her production before the court, alleging that her brother and family abducted her and forced her to lodge a false FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner presented a marriage certificate and photographs to show they had married and were cohabiting. The respondents contended that the woman, though an adult, had voluntarily lodged an FIR accusing the petitioner of rape and was not being detained by her family. The court examined the FIR and found no evidence that it was filed under duress and noted that the petitioner had already obtained pre‑arrest bail. Concluding that the woman was free to reside where she chose and was not in unlawful detention, the court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be issued when the alleged missing person is an adult who is not in unlawful detention.
- Whether the filing of an FIR under alleged family pressure constitutes detention for purposes of habeas corpus.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 49, 64, 64(2)(m), 69, 75(1), 75(2), 78(1), 87
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- missing person
- adult detention
- marriage
- false FIR
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41737-DB
(1)
Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1261 OF 2026
Dipak Balasaheb Devkar
Age : 23 Years, Occ. Service,
Residing at Devkar Vasti,
Near Mahadev Mandir, Shahpur,
Ahilynagar – 414 604 ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Ahilynagar
3. The Police Inspector,
Newasa Police Station,
District Ahilynagar
4. Annasaheb Dattu Kolte,
Age : Adult, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Near Hanuman Mandir, Shahapur,
Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahilynagar
5. Sangita Annasaheb Kolte,
Age : Adult, R/o. Shahapur,
Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahilyanagar
6. Vishal Annasaheb Kolte,
Age : Adult, R/o. Shahapur,
Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahilyanagar
...
Mr. Omkar Nevgi h/f Mr. V.S. Dahihande, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. G.A. Kulkarni,A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 08.09.2026
(2)
Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt
ORDER (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P.
2. The petitioner, posing himself as husband of the missing
girl, has prayed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for her
production before this Court. According to him, he knows the
missing girl since their school days and around the year 2023
their close friendship turned into love relationship.
Accordingly, they decided to solemnize the marriage and the
petitioner along with the missing girl, performed marriage on
13.05.2026 at Alandi voluntarily. However, immediately after
marriage, when they were residing together, the brother of the
missing girl i.e. respondent No.6, abducted her on 21.07.2026
and as such, he was constrained to file missing report on
25.07.2026. According to him, the missing girl, who was
detained by respondent Nos. 4 to 6, was compelled to lodge
false F.I.R. No. 345 of 2026 at Sonai Police Station, for the
offence punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 69, 75(1),
75(2), 78(1),49, 87, 352, 351(2), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 under their pressure. As
such, the applicant has sought issuance of Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
(3)
Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued
that the petitioner as well as the missing girl, are major and
they can reside with each other, wherever they want. He
pointed out that, the F.I.R was lodged by the missing girl
under pressure of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, but today also, the
missing girl intends to reside with him.
4. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P., strongly opposed
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by pointing
out that though the missing girl is major, but she has in fact
lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner for committing rape by
performing a false marriage. As such, he pointed out that
Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in this matter, since
the missing girl is not detained, but she is voluntarily in the
company of her family members. As such, he prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as the missing girl, are
major and they are free to reside anywhere as per their own
choices. Though certain photographs and marriage certificate
are produced on record by the petitioner, showing that they
performed marriage at Alandi and started cohabiting with
each other, but it is equally important to note that the
missing girl has in fact lodged an F.I.R with allegation of rape
against the petitioner.
(4)
Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt
6. On going through the said F.I.R, nowhere it reflects that
she lodged the said F.I.R under the pressure of her family
members. Moreover, the petitioner has already obtained pre-
arrest bail in the said crime. Under such circumstances, it
cannot be inferred that the missing girl is detained by her
family members. Moreover, the missing girl has attained
majority, and therefore, she is free to reside anywhere, as per
her own choice. Accordingly, we are not inclined to grant any
Writ of Habeas Corpus in this matter. Thus, the petition
stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Y.S. Kulkarni
Checking your session…