Sunny Kumar Alias Sani Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

CRWP-10930-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 136 )
CRWP-10930-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026
SUNNY KUMAR ALIAS SANI KUMAR
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Lakhanpal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tan u j Sharma, Asst. AG, Haryana.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing
the production and consequential release of the detenue, namely Gomti,
the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, from the alleged illegal and
unlawful custody of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent No.4
approached the police post and submitted a written complaint alleging that
he was employed in a private company and had six children, out of whom
his third daughter, aged about 21 years, had gone missing from the house
on 10.01.2026 at about 4.00 p.m. and had not returned. On the basis of the
said complaint, FIR No.16 dated 12.01.2026 was registered under Section
127(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Mujesar,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.09 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-10930-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana. Subsequently, upon completion of
investigation, the challan was presented against the present petitioner for
offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the BNS and Section
10 of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the initiation and continuation of the
aforesaid criminal proceedings, the petitioner has been constrained to
invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of the
instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the detenue
was recovered on 02.02.2026 and, on 03.02.2026, her statement was
recorded in the presence of legal aid counsel, with videography thereof
undertaken through the E-Sakshya App. In her statement, she disclosed
that she knew the petitioner, had developed a relationship with him and
desired to solemnize marriage with him. It is further submitted that the
petitioner and the detenue subsequently solemnized their marriage on
27.02.2026 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Kanpur (U.P.), according to Hindu rites
and ceremonies. The petitioner relies upon the documents of the detenue
reflecting her date of birth as 01.01.2004, as well as the marriage
certificate.
3.1. It is further contended that, during the pendency of the
proceedings, the detenue was examined before the Trial Court on
05.05.2026 and did not support the prosecution case. The petitioner was
thereafter granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2026.
Learned counsel submits that, despite the subsisting matrimonial
relationship, the detenue continues to remain under the control of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 against her wishes. Repeated requests for her
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.09 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-10930-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
release having failed, intervention of this Court by issuance of a writ of
Habeas Corpus is sought to secure her liberty and enable her to exercise
her personal autonomy in accordance with law.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Upon advance notice, Mr. Tan u j Sharma, Asst. AG, accepts
notice on behalf of the State of Haryana and vehemently opposes the
present petition. It is submitted that the detenue, as per the prosecution
case, was initially reported missing by her father and was subsequently
recovered during investigation. Learned State counsel contends that the
criminal proceedings are presently pending and the detenue is a material
witness in the case. It is further argued that the rival claims regarding her
age, marriage and alleged custody involve disputed questions of fact,
which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings seeking a writ of
Habeas Corpus. It is accordingly submitted that no case of illegal or
unlawful detention by the respondent authorities is made out and the
petition, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
carefully perused the paper-book, this Court is of the considered view that
the present petition does not warrant exercise of the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court. It is an admitted position that, arising out of the
same occurrence, a criminal case has already been registered against the
petitioner and the prosecution is presently pending before the Trial Court.
The pivotal issue therein is whether the detenue/victim was abducted by
the petitioner, as alleged by the prosecution, or whether she had
voluntarily accompanied him. Such a factual controversy is required to be
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.09 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-10930-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
determined by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on
record.
6.1. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition,
though couched as a prayer for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus,
appears to be a clever device to secure, through collateral proceedings, an
adjudication of an issue which directly constitutes the subject matter of the
pending prosecution. Entertaining such a plea at this stage may have the
effect of foreclosing, or at least materially influencing, the very question
which the Trial Court is required to determine. Any observation by this
Court touching upon the voluntariness of the detenue's conduct, the
circumstances in which she accompanied the petitioner, her age, or the
legality of the petitioner's conduct may inevitably have a bearing upon the
appreciation of evidence and the ultimate outcome of the criminal trial.
6.2. The extraordinary jurisdiction in the nature of Habeas Corpus
cannot be permitted to become an instrument for obtaining an indirect
adjudication of disputed questions of fact already engaging the attention of
the competent criminal Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to
achieve indirectly, by resort to collateral proceedings, what cannot
legitimately be achieved directly without potentially prejudicing the
pending prosecution. The present proceedings, therefore, cannot be
allowed to operate as a means to circumvent or pre-empt the adjudicatory
process already set in motion before the Trial Court. Petitioner can
approach the trial Court for grant of his prayer.
6.3. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the pending prosecution or the rival factual assertions, the present petition
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.09 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-10930-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
is hereby dismissed . It is clarified that the observations made herein are
confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not
influence the Trial Court, which shall decide the criminal case
independently, strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the
evidence brought on record.
7. By virtue of the final determination of the main cause, all
pending interlocutory and ancillary applications stand automatically
disposed of. The final adjudication of the core controversy has effectively
extinguished the substratum of these pending applications, rendering them
infructuous and precluding the need for separate judicial intervention or
formal orders.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.09 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document