SARSWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be the Uncle and Aunt of 'X' (name concealed) and have filed the present writ application seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of habeas corpus for release of 'X' in their favor, who has been sent to short stay <IMG>JUDGEMENT_101_LAWS(PAT)12_2022_1.jpg</IMG> home under an order passed by a Special Judge, POCSO, dtd. 18/5/2022. From the order dtd. 18/5/2022, it appears that 'X' has been found to be a minor, based on the entries made in the school register and Aadhaar Card.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand, has submitted that 'X' is major, above 18 years of age, as has been found by the Doctor. He submits that 'X' has declined to go under the guardianship of her parents. He further contends that she has married the nephew of these petitioners. A statement to this effect 'X' has made in her statement under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he contends.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the State, on the other hand, has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Shikha Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar (Full Bench), reported in 2020(2) PLJR 15, to contend that when the detention/stay is based on a judicial order passed by a competent court, a writ of habeas corpus for production of such person under detention/stay is not maintainable.