SUMIT SAURAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(A). For issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to immediately produce his son, Shardul before this Court, who has been in custody of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 since the death of petitioner's wife.

(3.) Inviting attention of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others in Cr. Appeal No. 838 of 2019, Gohar Begam Vs. Suggi Alias Nazma Begam and others, reported in 1960 SCR (1) 597, Capt. Dushyant Somal Vs. Smt. Sushma Somal and another, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 277, Syed Saleemuddin Vs. Dr. Rukhsana and Ors. in Appeal (crl.) 520 of 2001, Surya Vadanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2015, Ruchika Abbi and Anr. Vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr. In Cr. Appeal No. 1683 of 2015, Mrs. Kanika Goeal Vs. The State of Delhi in Cr. Appeal No. 635640 of 2018; judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Puran Chand Vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors, reported in 1994 (30) DRJ 13; judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Marggaeate Maria Pulparampil Nee .. Vs. Dr. Chacko Pulparampil and Ors., reported in AIR 1970 Ker 1; judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Amol Ramesh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1698 of 2013, as also the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, learned counsel with vehemence argues-