Pravin Dattatray Raut v. Om Somdatta Targaonkar And ANR

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2026 Pravin Dattatray Raut ..Petitioner

Versus

Om Somdatta Targaonkar & Ors.

..Respondents __________ None for Petitioner.

Petitioner-in-person present.

Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl.PP for State/Respondent. Mr. Ashish N. Saxena i/b. Vishal Dushing and Shreyash Gavali for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

__________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 4 MAY 2026 PC :

1.

This is a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 2.

The case of the Petitioner is that, his daughter was taken away by the Respondent No.1. She was missing from 12.12.2025 from the Petitioner's house. He had lodged the missing report No.141 of 2025 at Indapur police station. He was not knowing the whereabouts of his daughter. On the last occasion i.e. on 28.04.2026 we had recorded the submissions of the learned Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date:

2026.05.05 11:44:09 +0530 VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

Addl.P.P. that the Petitioner's daughter had contacted the police station and the police officers had obtained the documents regarding the marriage between the petitioner's daughter and the Respondent No.1. The learned Addl.P.P. further informed the Court that the Respondent No.1 is absconding in connection with a case registered under the MCOC Act.

3.

In this background, we thought it necessary to verify the safety of the Petitioner's daughter and, therefore, we had directed the officers of Indapur police station to produce her before this Court.

4.

Accordingly, the police officer of Indapur police station has brought the Petitioner's daughter to the Court. Her father and paternal grand-parents are also present. On the other side, the Respondent No.1's parents and brother are present. Learned Addl.P.P. Ms. Ganapathy interviewed the Petitioner's daughter. We permitted interaction between the Petitioner and his daughter in the chamber of the learned Addl.P.P. in presence of another APP. 5.

We interviewed the Petitioner's daughter in our

chambers at 3:00p.m. At that time, learned Addl.P.P. was also present. The Petitioner's daughter told us that, she is 19 years of age. Her date of birth is 29.09.2006. Thus, as of today, she is 19 years and 7 months old. She informed us that, she married the Respondent No.1 out of her own freewill and volition. There was no pressure on her either from the Respondent No.1 or his family. She was apprehending that, there would be opposition from her own parents and, therefore, she left her house and got married with the Respondent No.1. She further stated that, as of today, she is pregnant. She further stated that the Respondent No.1 left her with his parents at Indapur. At present, she does not know the Respondent No.1's whereabouts.

6.

Learned Addl.P.P. reiterated that the Respondent No.1 is an accused in MCOC case and he is still absconding. The Petitioner's daughter told us in presence of learned Addl.P.P. that, she wants to go back to her father's house. We took precaution that she was not under any pressure. All the relatives and the lawyers except learned Addl.P.P. were asked to stay out of the chambers and we interviewed the petitioner's daughter.

7.

Since she has expressed her clear wish and since she is a major, therefore, we are permitting her to go with her father to stay at her parental house. After she had expressed her desire, we permitted all the parties concerned to come to our chamber. We observed that there was no animosity between both the sides, and both the sides expressed that they would try to resolve the differences.

8.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner is not present in the Court. But since the Petitioner's daughter is permitted to go with the Petitioner, we are passing the following order.

O R D E R

i) The Petitioner is permitted to take his daughter with him to his house.

ii) Neither of the parties i.e. the Petitioner or the Respondent No.1's relatives shall put any pressure on the petitioner's daughter.

iii) The police officer of Indapur police station shall ensure that the Petitioner's daughter safely reaches to her father's house, and that there is no

untoward incident between the contesting parties.

iv) It is made clear that, henceforth, the Petitioner's daughter being a major, is free to take her own decision and to decide whether she wants to stay either with her father or with the Respondent No.1's family.

v) The Petition is disposed of.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)