Uttarakhand High Court
HABC/7/2026 of MANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 1 April 2026
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.07 of 2026 Mandeep Singh ….....Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Ankush Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. S. Virk, learned D.A.G. for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.07 of 2026
Mandeep Singh ….....Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ….….Respondents
Present:- Mr. Ankush Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. S. Virk, learned D.A.G. for the State.
Coram:Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
It is a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner seeking corpus of respondent no.7. The case of the petitioner is written in para no.3 of this Court’s order dated 25.03.2026 as below:- “3. It is habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner (husband) seeking corpus of his wife (respondent no.7). It is a case of the petitioner that he and respondent no.7 are in a romantic relationship. They married on 15.02.2026. But the family members of respondent no.7 were not agreeable to it, therefore, they extended threats, which compelled the petitioner to prefer a Writ Petition (Criminal) No.7635 of 2026, Smt. Rahimeen & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Others, before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in which protection order was passed. But subsequent to it, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner. The respondent nos. 5 & 6 also took respondent no.7 away from the house of the petitioner.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. In fact, when the matter was taken up on 25.03.2026, learned State Counsel, under instructions, has submitted that on 13.03.2026, respondent no.7 was examined under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 by the Judicial Magistrate Jaspur, District Udham Singh
Nagar. The respondent no.7 has then stated that she had been deceitfully taken away by the petitioner to Allahabad, where her signatures were subsequently obtained on certain papers. She somehow managed to escape from there.
4. It is, thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, respondent no.7 is under pressure of her parents, therefore, her examination may be conducted by this Court. The Court had then requested the presence of respondent no.7 through V.C., from Video Conferencing Room of District Court, Udham Singh Nagar.
5. The respondent no.7 has joined the proceedings through video conferencing. She has been identified by S.I. Ms. Ruchika Chauhan from Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On being asked, the respondent no.7 submits that she is willingly staying with her parents. No one has pressurized her to stay where she is at present residing. She further states that she did not marry the appellant ever. According to her, the appellant took her under pressure.
6. Since the respondent no.7 has stated before this Court also that she is willingly staying with her parents, there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, there is no reason to entertain the present Habeas Corpus Petition. It stands disposed of accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.04.2026
01.04.2026
Akash