Case Background
This case arose from a criminal writ petition filed by a mother seeking a writ of habeas corpus from the Patna High Court. She is the mother of respondent no.7, a young woman who had been studying B.A. Part-2 at B.N. College, Patna.
The daughter was staying at Shahin Girls Hostel, Ramna Road, Patna. On 07.12.2019, she went out of the hostel at about 07:15 AM and did not return. She became untraceable from that date.
After family members could not find her despite efforts, her maternal uncle, who was her local guardian in Patna, lodged a written report before the Station House Officer of Pirbahore Police Station. Based on this report, Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 631 of 2019 was registered on 11.12.2019 under Sections 363 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging kidnapping and wrongful confinement.
In the written report, the uncle stated that his niece, aged about 19 years, had gone missing from the hostel and that there was suspicion against Nitish Kumar (respondent no.6), a co-villager of the girl. It was alleged that Nitish Kumar had earlier threatened her brother that he would forcibly lift the girl from her place of stay. The uncle also mentioned that the mobile phones of both Nitish Kumar and the girl were switched off, leading him to suspect abduction and wrongful confinement for some illegal purpose.
Later, according to the mother, she began to receive phone calls that strengthened her belief that her daughter was being held against her will. On 19.01.2020, she says she received a call from the daughter’s mobile number, during which the daughter allegedly stated that she had been forcibly taken and married to respondent no.6 with the help of his parents (respondent nos.4 and 5) and was being kept captive, moved from place to place. Similar calls were stated to have been made on 21.01.2020 and 22.01.2020 to other family members, including the girl’s grandfather, mother and father, expressing a desire to be rescued.
The mother and her family thereafter approached the Officer-in-Charge of Pirbahore Police Station and the investigating officer, requesting that the daughter be recovered from what they believed was illegal confinement. Feeling that the police were not making sincere efforts and that the daughter wanted to come home but was unable to do so, the mother moved the Patna High Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 241 of 2020.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The habeas corpus petition was heard by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. The mother sought a direction to the police authorities and the private respondents to produce respondent no.7 before the Court and hand over her custody to the petitioner.
On behalf of the mother, it was argued that the daughter had been illegally and forcibly confined by respondent nos.4 to 6. Counsel stressed that she had repeatedly expressed her desire to return home during phone calls but could not do so because of this illegal confinement. It was submitted that this was a fit case for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The State and the private respondents (respondent nos.4 to 7) opposed the petition. They contended that the writ petition had been filed only because the marriage was inter-religion. According to them, respondent no.7 had chosen her life partner of her own free will and was now being harassed by her parents for that choice.
Two counter affidavits were filed before the Court. Respondent no.2 (the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna) set out the investigative steps taken in Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 631 of 2019. The investigating officer recorded the statements of the informant and witnesses, namely Farida Khatoon, Firoz Hashmi and Danish Parwez. Call detail records of respondent nos.6 and 7 for the period 01.11.2019 to 11.12.2019 were collected. The investigation was supervised by senior police officers.
Crucially, the SSP’s counter affidavit stated that respondent no.7 herself appeared at Pirbahore Police Station on 20.01.2019. Her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna. In that statement, she confessed that she had married Nitish Kumar (respondent no.6) on her own wish and volition. She stated that the marriage took place on 13.12.2019 in the Court of Jamtara and on 14.12.2019 in a temple at Chitranjan, and that no one had kidnapped her.
Respondent no.7 also produced her Aadhaar Card and matriculation mark-sheet. These documents showed her date of birth as 31.03.2001, which meant that she was above 18 years of age at the relevant time and therefore a major in law. After considering her statement and the materials collected, the investigating agency submitted Final Form No. 25 of 2020 dated 07.03.2020 before the court, treating the allegations in the FIR as a “mistake of fact”.
In a joint counter affidavit, respondent nos.6 and 7 reiterated that the FIR lodged by the maternal uncle was false. Respondent no.7 explained that after learning about the FIR, she came to Patna with her husband and his parents to give her statement before the court. She stated that she had left the hostel on her own without telling anyone, went near NIT More and called respondent no.6. From there she went with him to his room where she stayed for four to five days.
Thereafter, she and respondent no.6 travelled by train to Jamtara, where she married him in court on 13.12.2019, and then in a temple at Chitranjan on 14.12.2019. Since then, she claimed, they had been living together as husband and wife.
Despite these affidavits, counsel for the mother maintained an apprehension about the safety of respondent no.7. He questioned whether the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC had been voluntary or given under threat or duress. To address this concern, the Bench passed an order on 25.11.2021 directing respondent nos.6 and 7 to be personally present in chambers on 30.11.2021.
In compliance, respondent nos.6 and 7 appeared before the Bench in chambers. The judges directly questioned respondent no.7. She categorically stated that the contents of the FIR were not true. She described herself as a co-villager of respondent no.6 and said that they had been studying together since Class 8 and had fallen in love.
She stated that both were aware of each other’s religion and had taken a conscious decision to marry. She said their marriage had been notarized and then solemnized in a temple. She clearly asserted that she had not been abducted by anyone and had married respondent no.6 of her own volition.
The Bench also asked whether she wanted to meet or talk to her parents. Her reply, recorded verbatim in the judgment, was that she did not wish to meet or talk to her father or mother, did not want to be forced to meet them, did not wish to return to their home, and wanted to remain married to respondent no.6. She added that she was being kept well by her in-laws and husband in her matrimonial home and would accompany her husband back from the Court.
After hearing all sides, interacting personally with the daughter, and considering the record, the Patna High Court turned to the constitutional backdrop. The Court noted that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to every individual. Over time, the Supreme Court has held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of this right, and that the freedom to choose a religion and a life partner is protected under Articles 19 and 21 as an essential component of liberty and autonomy.
The Bench particularly relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368. That decision traced the history and scope of the writ of habeas corpus and emphasized that its core purpose is to ensure that no one is deprived of liberty without sanction of law. The Supreme Court had held that when an allegedly missing or detained person appears before the court as a major and clearly states that he or she is not under illegal confinement, and the court finds that statement to be voluntary, the habeas corpus inquiry should end there.
The Patna High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observations that courts cannot decide what is the “just” way of life or the “correct” course of living for an adult; such individuals have absolute autonomy over their person, so long as their choice does not violate any legal framework.
Applying these principles, the Bench noted that in the present case the police investigation had already concluded that the FIR allegations were a “mistake of fact.” The daughter had physically appeared both before the Magistrate and before the High Court. On each occasion she consistently stated that she had not been abducted, had married respondent no.6 of her own free will, and was living with him without any coercion.
The Court observed that the daughter was admittedly a major. She expressly refused to return to her parents’ home and insisted on remaining with her husband, stating that she was happy in her matrimonial home. In such circumstances, the core requirement for issuing a writ of habeas corpus—that the person concerned be under illegal detention or confinement—was clearly not satisfied.
The Bench held that no case was made out for handing over her custody to the mother. Instead, it stated that the petitioner must respect her daughter’s decision and allow her to live a peaceful life in her matrimonial home.
On this reasoning, the Patna High Court found no merit in the criminal writ petition and dismissed it.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for families and young adults in Bihar and beyond who are involved in inter-religion or self-choice marriages. It makes clear that once a person is an adult, their decision to marry and live with a partner is their own, and courts will protect that choice.
For parents, the ruling sends a message that disagreement with a child’s marriage or partner, including on religious grounds, does not justify using criminal law or habeas corpus to regain custody if the child is a major and is living willingly with the spouse.
For the police, the judgment recognises that their investigation closed the kidnapping case as a “mistake of fact” after verifying the girl’s age and recording her voluntary statement. It supports careful investigation rather than presuming criminality in cases of adult elopement or interfaith unions.
More broadly, the decision reinforces that the Patna High Court will follow the Supreme Court’s line in Shafin Jahan and similar cases: the purpose of habeas corpus is to check illegal detention, not to judge the correctness of an adult woman’s marriage or life choices.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether an adult woman, who has married a man of her choice, can be treated as illegally confined so that her custody is handed over to her parents through a writ of habeas corpus.
Answer: No. Since the woman was a major, had voluntarily married and was living with her husband without coercion, and had clearly refused to return to her parents, there was no illegal confinement and no ground to grant habeas corpus. -
Issue: Whether the High Court should intervene when police investigation in a kidnapping case concludes as “mistake of fact” after the alleged victim states that she left and married of her own free will.
Answer: No. Once investigation and the victim’s statements show that she was not kidnapped and is exercising her own choice as a major, the Court will not interfere or order custody in favour of the parents.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368
- Cox v. Hakes, (1890) LR 15 AC 506 (HL)
- Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O’Brien, 1923 AC 603
- Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674
- Ware v. Sanders, 124 NW 1081 (1910)
- Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala, (2011) 10 SCC 781
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 241 of 2020
Case Title: Bibi Darakhshan Firoz v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 74
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, APP
For Respondent Nos.4 to 7: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal writ petition seeking writ of habeas corpus in relation to alleged kidnapping and illegal confinement following an inter-religion marriage.
Link to the Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
