GANGA MANDAL S/O RAMSOGARTH MANDALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/6317/2026                        ORDER DATED: 15/06/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

  R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 6317 of 2026
==========================================================
                 GANGA MANDAL S/O RAMSOGARTH MANDAL
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DEV A. PATEL(19305) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
          and
          HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
          DESAI
                       Date : 15/06/2026
                        ORAL ORDER
 (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

1.     Today the proceedings were conducted in-camera. The
corpus is personally present.

2.     The captioned petition is filed seeking direction to the
respondents to produce the corpus Manisha Kumari. This
court had issued notice to the respondents on 04.05.2026.

3.     During the course of hearing, submissions were made
that in some of the public documents (including the Aadhar
Card) the date of birth of the corpus is 18.04.2007 and
considering the date of birth of the corpus, she has attained
majority. In another set of documents namely the birth-
certificate the date of birth mentioned is 02.03.2009. Thus, in
view of lack of clarity of age, the corpus was required to
continue to stay in the Special Home for Girls, Rajkot. On
11.06.2026, the father of the corpus i.e. the respondent no. 4
since was not represented by any lawyer, the matter was kept



                               Page 1 of 3
     R/SCR.A/6317/2026                              ORDER DATED: 15/06/2026




today acceding his request for time. The clarity as regards the
age of the corpus was still an issue and as a result, the corpus
was allowed to continue to stay in the Special Home for Girls,
Rajkot.

4.     Today, Mr.Sanjay Prajapati, learned Advocate states that
he has received instructions to appear for respondent no. 4
and shall be filing his Vakalatnama. Registry is directed to
accept the Vakalatnama that may be filed by the learned
Advocate.

5.     Today, submission is made on behalf of the respondent
no. 4 that he has no objection if the corpus wishes to join the
petitioner.

6.     Discernibly, in the documents produced on record
namely the Aadhar card, school leaving certificate, transfer
certificate etc. the date of birth of the corpus is mentioned as
18.04.2007. While in the birth-certificate, the date of birth is
mentioned as 02.03.2009. Notably, the birth-certificate is
issued on 23.03.2010; hence, it is difficult to fathom as to how
and on what basis the entry has been incorporated in the
birth-certificate. In view of the lack of clarity the age
determination test was conducted and the medical officer of
P.D.U Hospital, Rajkot has issued the certificate. Relevant
excerpts from the age determination certificate read thus:

      “Radiological bone age shall between 16-19 years. As per dental
      surgeon opinion dental age could be around 14-16 years.

         From the radiological Examination of Shri Ms. Manishakumari
         D/o Dilipbhai being the above stated identification of sic. on
         mark, I am of the opinion that the individual is aged about 14-
         19 (Fourteen to Nineteen) years on the day of 23/2/2026


                                  Page 2 of 3
       R/SCR.A/6317/2026                                                        ORDER DATED: 15/06/2026




            examination i.e. Dt. 23-2-2026.”


 7.        Therefore, based on the certificate issued by the medical
 officer of P.D.U. Hospital, Rajkot the age of the corpus is
 ranging between 14 years to 19 years (Fourteen years to
 Nineteen Years). The said certificate is directed to be taken on
 record.

 8.        In view          of the above referred documents and the age
 determination                  certificate,             without            entering             into        the
 merits/demerits of age, we deem it appropriate to allow the
 corpus to join the petitioner.

 9.        The father-in-law of the corpus- Mr.Ramsogarth Mandal
 is personally present and is identified by Mr.Dev Patel,
 learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. The Special
 Home for Girls, Rajkot is directed to permit the corpus to go
 with        Mr.Ramsogarth                    Mandal,             after       following            requisite
 formalities and due verification.

 10.       In view of the above, Mr.Dev Patel, learned Advocate
 appearing for the petitioner states that since the grievance of
 the petitioner is redressed, no further orders are necessitated
 and the petition may be disposed of.

 11.       The captioned petition is disposed of accordingly.



                                                                          (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)



                                                           (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)
 SINDHU NAIR
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: SINDHU UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR(HC01395), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/06/2026 12:06:55


                                                    Page 3 of 3