The court clarified that where the alleged detenue is found to be in the lawful custody of the petitioner, habeas corpus relief is not maintainable and the petition stands disposed. This judgment affirms settled law, reinforcing summary disposal in similar habeas corpus petitions before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, with binding effect on all subordinate courts within its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRWP/3444/2025 of SARESHO Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010558402025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law (Habeas Corpus – Art. 226) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable when the alleged detenue is already in lawful custody of the petitioner. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for the release of his minor son Sunny, allegedly in the illegal custody of private respondents. The State, upon instructions, informed the court that the minor was already in the custody of the petitioner. The petition was consequently disposed of as no illegal confinement was made out. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that habeas corpus petitions are not maintainable where the alleged detenue is already in the lawful custody of the petitioner.
- Confirms that court intervention under Art. 226 is not warranted without evidence of illegal detention.
- Lawyers should obtain State’s position on custody status and be prepared for summary disposal in clear-cut cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on allegations of illegal detention of a minor son by private respondents.
- The State, upon instructions, informed the court that the alleged detenue was currently with the petitioner.
- In view of the State’s submission contradicting any claim of illegal detention, the court found that the petition had become infructuous.
- The court held that no further orders were necessary, as the purpose of the writ had been served once the detenue was found in the petitioner’s custody.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging illegal confinement of his minor son by respondents No. 4 and 5.
Respondent (State)
The State, on instructions, stated that the minor was already in the custody of the petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the release of his minor son Sunny, allegedly in the illegal confinement of private respondents (No. 4 and 5). During the hearing, the State’s counsel informed the court that the minor was in fact already with the petitioner. With no evidence of illegal detention, the petition was disposed of.
Statutory Analysis
The court considered Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including habeas corpus. The judgment clarified that such writs are to be issued only when there is an actual case of illegal or wrongful detention.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established precedent regarding maintainability of habeas corpus petitions in the absence of illegal detention.