Bombay High Court
SANGEETA ARUN MAGARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition was disposed as the daughter voluntarily elected to return to her parents, rendering further relief unnecessary.
Summary
The petitioner, Sangeeta Arun Magar, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking the production of her 22‑year‑old daughter, who had left home on 15 June 2026. The court ordered the police to bring the daughter before it, and she was produced in chambers. After being given time to consider her options, the daughter expressed a desire to return to her parents. The court held that, given the daughter’s voluntary decision, there was no further ground for the petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed, and the daughter was free to stay with her parents.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial response to a habeas corpus petition when the alleged detainee voluntarily chooses to return to the petitioner?
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- voluntary return
- parental custody
- privacy
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
:1: 3-wp-3698-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2026
Sangeeta Arun Magar …..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .….Respondent
-----
Ms. Pramila H. Salvi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Deepa Panicker, Advocate for the Petitioner’s daughter.
The Petitioner is present in-person.
The Petitioner’s daughter is present in-person.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
[IN CHAMBERS]
P.C. :
1. Heard Ms. Pramila Salvi, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Ms. Supriya Kak, learned APP for the Respondent-
State and Ms. Deepa Panicker, learned counsel for the
Petitioner’s daughter.
2. This is a Petition for issuance of writ of habeas
corpus. The Petitioner is mother of a 22 year old daughter,
who was not residing with the Petitioner’s family since
15.6.2026 and, therefore, this Petition is filed. On the last
1 of 3
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 3-wp-3698-26.odt
occasion, we had directed the police officers to produce the
Petitioner’s daughter before the Court at 3.00 p.m. in the
Chambers. Accordingly, the police have brought the Petitioner’s
daughter to our Chambers at 3.00 p.m.. We interacted with the
Petitioner’s daughter. She sought some time to consider her
options. Therefore, we kept back the matter and the matter
was called out after we rose after the day’s work and came
back to our Chambers. At that time the Petitioner’s daughter
expressed her desire to go back to her parents and stay with
them.
3. In view of the desire expressed by the Petitioner’s
daughter, it is not necessary to refer to the circumstances why
she had left her parent’s house. This is necessary to protect her
privacy. The Petitioner’s daughter took sufficient time to
consider her options and has taken a decision to go back to stay
with her parents. When we passed this order, the Petitioner’s
daughter, her learned counsel, the Petitioner and her learned
counsel were present in the Chambers. Learned APP was also
present in the Chambers.
2 of 3
:3: 3-wp-3698-26.odt
4. In this view of the matter, nothing further survives
in this Petition and it is disposed of. Needless to add that the
Petitioner’s daughter is free to go and stay with her parents as
desired by her.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
Date: 2026.08.21 14:07:57
+0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…