Ashish Kumar v. State Of Haryana Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRWP-5287-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 06.05.2026 Ashish Kumar ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.

***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for producing Shivani wife of present petitioner and daughter of later Mahender Singh, who is in the illegal custody of respondent No.5 and his accomplice. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and detenue had solemnized marriage on 05.02.2022, and both were living a peaceful matrimonial life without any discord. It is submitted that on 14.03.2026, the petitioner dropped his wife at her parental home at village Rulaheri, and thereafter, he remained in regular contact with her. During her stay at her parental house, the petitioner's wife was forcibly taken away on 06.04.2026 by one Sumit Gujjar, in connivance with his associates. This fact was disclosed to the petitioner by his sister-in-law on 07.04.2026. It is contended that although an FIR No. 94 dated 08.04.2026 was registered by her cousin under Section 127(6) of the BNS regarding the missing of the petitioner's wife, the name of the said Sumit Gujjar was deliberately not mentioned due to fear. It is further submitted that despite efforts made by the petitioner and his family members to trace the whereabouts of his wife, no GEETA RANI 2026.05.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

CRWP-5287-2026 (O&M) ( 2 ) clue could be found, and even the petitioner's mother-in-law has left her village under apprehension of threat from the said Sumit Gujjar, who is stated to be an influential person with a criminal background. Regarding this, a representation dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) has been made to respondent No.2-The Superintendent of Police, District Yamuna Nagar, but no action has been taken thereupon.

2.

Notice of motion.

3.

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State counsel and submitted that the authorities will look into the matter and take action on the representation moved by the present petitioner.

4.

Heard.

5.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly that the detenue went to her parental home on 14.03.2026 and thereafter went missing on 06.04.2026, and that a missing report led to registration of FIR No. 94 dated 08.04.2026, as well as the subsequent representation submitted by the petitioner alleging that his wife has been taken away by respondent No. 5, namely Sumit Gujjar, this Court deems it appropriate to issue necessary directions. Accordingly, respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-2) moved by the petitioner and to take appropriate action thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously. 6.

Disposed of accordingly.

( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 06.05.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GEETA RANI 2026.05.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh