Giridhar Gopal v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.426 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Giridhar Gopal Son of Anil Singh Resident of Village- Chandey, P.O.- Abgil, P.S.- Korma, Distt.- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Bihar 2.

The Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Bihar, Patna Bihar 3.

The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Bihar, Patna Bihar 4.

The District Magistrate, Nawada Bihar 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Nawada Bihar 6.

The Station House Officer, Warisgunj Police Station, District- Nawada Bihar 7.

Subodh Prasad Singh Resident Of Village- Kumbhi, P.S.- Warisganj, Distt.- Nawada 8.

Baidehi Devi Wife Of Subodh Prasad Singh Resident Of Village- Kumbhi, P.S.- Warisganj, Distt.- Nawada 9.

Raushan Kumar Son Of Subodh Prasad Singh Resident Of Village- Kumbhi, P.S.- Warisganj, Distt.- Nawada 10.

Kumari Meenu Wife Of Giridhar Gopal Resident Of Village- Chandey, P.O.- Abgil, P.S.- Korma, Distt.- Sheikhpura ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, AC to AG For Res. Nos.7 to 10 :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) 10-04-2025 Heard Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State as well as Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.426 of 2025(4) dt.10-04-2025 2/3 appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.7 to 10.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 03.04.2025, this Court passed the following order:- The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the respondent police authorities be directed to produce the corpus, i.e., Respondent No.10, namely, Kumari Meenu, who is wife of the petitioner, before this Court.

2. Heard Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got married with Respondent No.10, the corpus on 20.06.2021. However, in July, 2022, Respondent No.10 went to her parental house and since then she has never returned to his house. It is further submitted that Respondent No.10, the corpus is in illegal custody of Respondent Nos.7 to 9 and, therefore, a writ of habeas corpus be issued and thereby the concerned respondents be directed to produce the corpus before this Court.

4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on 24.03.2025, today the respondent police authority has produced the corpus before us. We have taken up the matter in Chambers. We have also interacted with the petitioner as well as the corpus. Both of them discussed the matter and at present they have decided to go to Delhi and they will stay together in Delhi for a period of one week and thereafter the corpus will give her further statement before us. Both of them have jointly requested that

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.426 of 2025(4) dt.10-04-2025 3/3 the matter be kept on 10.04.2025.

5. At their request, the matter is adjourned.

6. Re-notify this matter on 10.04.2025 at 02:15 p.m. in Chambers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the petitioner as well as the corpus, respondent no.10, are present before this Court and, therefore, now this Court may interact with the corpus, respondent no.10.

4. We have interacted with respondent no.10, the corpus. She has specifically stated before us that she does not want to go with the present petitioner, who is her husband.

5. In view of the aforesaid wish shown by the corpus, respondent no.10, we are of the view that the present petition is misconceived.

6. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (Vipul M. Pancholi, J.) (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.) Sanjay/- U T