Veerpal Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
258

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.11.2026
Veerpal Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
*
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
directing the respondents to release the alleged detenue, a minor girl, along
with her infant daughter from Vanita Gandhi Ashram (Nari Niketan),
Jalandhar (respondent No. 4), where she is alleged to be illegally detained
against her wishes.
2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the alleged detenue is the
victim in a criminal case which, besides other offences, involves offences
under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
short 'POCSO Act') . Therefore, the name and other particulars of
victim/detenu are being withheld in this order.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 2
3. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is that her son
Inderjeet Singh @ Deep Paster and the detenue fell in love with each other
and decided to marry. The parents of the detenue were not agreeable to the
alliance and threatened both of them with dire consequences. It is pleaded
that the son of the petitioner and the detenue thereafter solemnized their
marriage and started living together as husband and wife. Out of this
wedlock, a female child was born to them.
4. The father of the detenue got registered FIR No. 149 dated
30.08.2025 under Sections 137(2) and 87 BNS at Police Station Sadar, Sri
Muktsar Sahib against the son of the petitioner. Offences under Sections
61(2) and 64 BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added later. During
investigation, the son of the petitioner was arrested and the detenue was
produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Sri Muktsar Sahib (for short
'the CWC') . As per the petitioner, the detenue stated before the CWC that she
did not want to go with her parents and wished to live in her matrimonial
home. Despite this, the CWC vide order dated 02.03.2026 directed her to be
kept along with her minor daughter in the Children Home, Gandhi Vanita
Ashram, Jalandhar. The challan in the aforesaid case has since been presented
before the competent Court. It is further pleaded that a copy of the order of
the CWC has not been supplied to the petitioner despite repeated requests.
5. Notice of motion was issued on 13.10.2026. On that date,
learned State counsel, on instructions, submitted that the detenue had been
sent to Vanita Gandhi Ashram, Jalandhar as per valid orders passed by the
CWC. Respondent No. 3 was directed to produce the detenue before this
Court on the next date of hearing. On 31.10.2026, the detenue appeared
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 3
before this Court along with her child. She stated that she wanted to live with
the petitioner, whom she described as her mother-in-law. On the same date,
the reply of respondents No. 1 to 3 was taken on record and the detenue was
directed to continue to reside in Vanita Gandhi Ashram, Jalandhar till further
orders.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the detenue is
being kept in the Children Home against her wishes. She had clearly told the
CWC that she did not want to go with her parents and wished to live in her
matrimonial home. The same desire has been expressed by her before this
Court as well. Learned counsel argues that a girl, even if she is a minor,
cannot be confined in a Nari Niketan against her will, and such confinement
amounts to illegal detention. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the
detenue and the grandmother of the infant. She has undertaken to maintain
both of them and to take proper care of them. It is further argued that the
order of the CWC was passed in disregard of the wishes of the detenue and is
liable to be quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel
argues that in similar circumstances, this Court has handed over the custody
of minor girls to their mothers-in-law, in deference to their firm wishes. To
buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the authorities cited
as Balwinder Singh @ Binder v. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 1 , Smt. Saroj v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (93) ALR 37 ,
Surekha v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-11923-2013 (Annexure P-2), Rami
Devi v. State of Punjab and others, CRWP-959-2014, decided on
30.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), Preeti and another v. State of Haryana and
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 4
others, CRWP-4181-2020, decided on 16.10.2020 and Chhalo Rani v. State
of Punjab and others, CRWP-9379-2021, decided on 23.12.2021 .
7. Per contra , learned State counsel has opposed the petition by
referring to the reply filed by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Sub Division Sri Muktsar Sahib, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to
3. It is argued that the detenue was recovered on 27.02.2026 from the
company of the son of the petitioner along with her two months old child.
She refused to undergo medical examination and DNA test. Her statement
under Section 183 of BNSS (which corresponds to Section 164 of Cr.P.C.)
was recorded on 28.02.2026 (Annexure R-1), whereafter the offences under
Section 64 BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added. As per her
school record, her date of birth is 12.05.2009. She was, thus, about 16 years
of age at the time of occurrence and continues to be a minor. Learned State
counsel argues that the detenue was not willing to go with her parents. The
CWC, therefore, ordered her placement in the Children Home, Gandhi Vanita
Ashram, Jalandhar on 02.03.2026, and she was admitted there along with her
child vide receipt Annexure R-2.
8. It is further argued that the order of the CWC has been passed by
a competent authority and calls for no interference in a petition for habeas
corpus. The petitioner is neither the natural nor the de facto guardian of the
detenue and has no locus standi to seek her custody. No evidence regarding
marriage of the detenue with the son of the petitioner came on record during
investigation. Even otherwise, the detenue was a minor at the relevant time. It
is argued that the petition has been filed with an oblique motive. If the
custody of the detenue is handed over to the mother of the accused, she is
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 5
likely to be influenced and dissuaded from deposing against him. This would
seriously affect a free and fair trial. Hence, it is urged that the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, taken into
account the wish expressed by the detenue before this Court and gone
through the record with their able assistance.
10. Certain facts are not in dispute. The date of birth of the detenue
is recorded as 12.05.2009 in her school record. This date finds mention in the
challan (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner herself and also in the
admission receipt of the Children Home (Annexure R-2). The petitioner has
not placed on record any document showing a different age. On the date of
the alleged occurrence, i.e., 16.08.2025, the detenue was about 16 years and 3
months old. Even today, she is about 17 years and 5 months old and will
attain majority only on 12.05.2027. She is, therefore, a 'child' within the
meaning of Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'JJ Act') as well as Section 2(1)(d) of the
POCSO Act. It is also not in dispute that she has been placed in the Children
Home along with her infant daughter under the order dated 02.03.2026
passed by the CWC. The petitioner herself has pleaded so in the petition.
11. In this background, the first question which arises is whether a
writ of habeas corpus can be issued when the detenue is lodged in a Children
Home under an order of the CWC. The writ of habeas corpus is meant to
secure the release of a person who is in illegal detention. Before the writ can
be issued, the Court must be satisfied that the custody complained of has no
sanction of law.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 6
12. The JJ Act provides a complete scheme for the care and
protection of children. The CWC is constituted under Section 27 of the JJ
Act. Under sub-section (9) thereof, it functions as a Bench and has the
powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First
Class under Cr.P.C. Section 29 of the JJ Act vests the CWC with the
authority to dispose of cases relating to the care, protection, treatment,
development and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection. A
child who has been sexually abused, or is likely to be abused, falls within the
definition of a 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14) of the
JJ Act. Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act also requires every such case to be
reported to the CWC. After inquiry, the CWC may pass orders under Section
37 of the JJ Act, which include placement of the child in a Children Home.
Any person aggrieved by an order of the CWC has a remedy of appeal under
Section 101 of the JJ Act. Thus, the placement of the detenue in the Children
Home flows from an order of a statutory authority acting within its
jurisdiction.
13. The law on the scope of a writ of habeas corpus against custody
under an order of a competent authority is well settled. In Manubhai Ratilal
Patel through Ushaben v. State of Gujarat and others, (2013) 1 SCC 314 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ is not to be entertained where a
person is in custody under an order of a competent court, unless the order
prima facie appears to be without jurisdiction, mechanical or wholly illegal.
The relevant observations read as under:-
"22. At this juncture, we may profitably refer to the
Constitution Bench decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 7
through C.B.I. , Bombay (II) wherein it has been opined
thus: -
'It is settled by Constitution Bench decisions that a
petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus on the
ground of absence of a valid order of remand or
detention of the accused, has to be dismissed, if on the
date of return of the rule, the custody or detention is
on the basis of a valid order. '
xxx xxx xxx
32. ... It is well accepted principle that a writ of habeas
corpus is not to be entertained when a person is
committed to judicial custody or police custody by the
competent court by an order which prima facie does
not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an
absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal. As has
been stated in the cases of B.R. Rao (supra) and Kanu
Sanyal (supra), the court is required to scrutinize the
legality or otherwise of the order of detention which has
been passed. Unless the court is satisfied that a person
has been committed to jail custody by virtue of an
order that suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction
or absolute illegality, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be
granted. ..."
14. Though the above principle was laid down in the context of an
order of remand, it applies with equal force to an order of a CWC, which
exercises the powers of a Magistrate under the JJ Act. A Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court examined this very question in Km. Rachna and
another v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2021 Allahabad 109 (FB) . It was
held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable where the corpus is in
custody under a judicial order of a Magistrate or of a CWC under the JJ Act,
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 8
and such an order cannot be set aside in a habeas corpus petition. The Full
Bench also revisited the earlier view of that Court that even a minor cannot
be sent to a protective home against her wishes, and held that the wishes of
the child are to be given credence within the framework of Section 37 of the
JJ Act. The answers rendered to the second and third questions referred to the
Full Bench read as under:-
"Question No. 2 : Whether detention of a corpus in
Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile
Home/Child Care Home pursuant to an order (may be
improper) can be termed/viewed as an illegal detention?
Answer: An illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction
by a Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee
appointed under Section 27 of the J.J. Act, sending the
victim to Women Protection Home/Nari
Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home cannot be
treated an illegal detention.
Question No. 3 : Under the Scheme of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the welfare
and safety of child in need of care and protection is the
legal responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare
Committee and as such, the proposition that even a minor
cannot be sent to Women Protection Home/Nari
Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home against his/her
wishes is legally valid or it requires a modified approach
in consonance with the object of the Act?
Answer: Under the J.J. Act, the welfare and safety of
child in need of care and protection is the legal
responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare Committee
and the Magistrate/Committee must give credence to
her wishes. As per Section 37 of the J.J. Act the
Committee, on being satisfied through the inquiry that
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 9
the child before the Committee is a child in need of
care and protection, may, on consideration of Social
Investigation Report submitted by Child Welfare
Officer and taking into account the child's wishes in
case the child is sufficiently mature to take a view, pass
one or more of the orders mentioned in Section 37 (1)
(a) to (h). "
15. A coordinate Bench of this Court has taken the same view in
Harish v. State of Haryana and others, CRWP-1381-2025, decided on
15.02.2025 . In that case, the detenue, aged 17 years, had been placed in a
Children Home under an order of the CWC, Palwal. The petition was
disposed of as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate forum. It was observed as under:-
"5. Since the detenue is under protection by virtue of
order passed by the statutory authority/committee, no
observation can be made in this present petition
whether the detenue is in illegal custody. Therefore,
present petition is disposed of, being not maintainable.
6. However, it would be open for the petitioner to file
appropriate petition before the appropriate forum to seek
custody of the alleged detenue, as per law."
16. Coming to the case in hand, the order dated 02.03.2026 has been
passed by the CWC, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which is the competent authority
under the JJ Act. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the order
is without jurisdiction or is wholly illegal. Though the petitioner has pleaded
in the petition that the order is liable to be quashed, she has neither placed it
on record nor sought its quashing in the prayer clause. She has also not
availed the remedy of appeal under Section 101 of the JJ Act. The plea
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 10
regarding non-supply of a copy of the order does not render the custody of
the detenue illegal. At best, it furnished a ground to apply to the CWC for a
copy or to raise the grievance in appeal. In view of the law laid down in
Manubhai Ratilal Patel's case (supra) and the principles noticed in
Rachna's case (supra) and Harish's case (supra) , the stay of the detenue in
the Children Home cannot be termed as illegal detention so as to warrant the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed strong
reliance upon Preeti's case (supra) and Chhalo Rani's case (supra) . It is true
that in some cases this Court has, in exercise of its parens patriae
jurisdiction, examined the question of custody of a minor girl even where she
had been placed in a protective home. In Preeti's case (supra) , a runaway
couple had sought protection. The girl was 16 years and 10 months old at the
time of marriage and the boy was 18 years and 6 months old. The Court
found that the girl had left her parental home on her own, that prima facie
there was a marriage ceremony with Saptapadi, and that the mother of the
boy was willing to accept her. Keeping in view her firm wish, the Court
allowed her to live with her mother-in-law till she attained majority, under
the monitoring of the CWC.
18. Following Preeti's case (supra) , another coordinate Bench of
this Court in Chhalo Rani's case (supra) set aside the order under which a
minor girl had been sent to Vanita Gandhi Ashram, Jalandhar, and handed
over her custody to her mother-in-law. This was made subject to conditions,
including a personal bond by the mother-in-law undertaking not to allow her
son to consummate the marriage till the girl attained majority. At the same
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 11
time, Preeti's case (supra) itself noticed that the decisions of this Court in
such matters are not uniform, as each case turns upon its own facts. Among
others, it took note of Gaurav v. State of Punjab and others, CRWP-5531-
2020, decided on 04.08.2020 , wherein a writ of habeas corpus was declined
because the minor girl had been sent to a Children Home by a Magistrate of
competent jurisdiction. Therefore, even apart from the question of
maintainability, this Court deems it appropriate to examine whether the best
interest of the detenue would be served by handing over her custody to the
petitioner.
19. Examined from this angle as well, the petitioner has not made
out a case for the relief claimed. This Court is conscious of the fact that the
detenue, on 31.10.2026, expressed her desire to live with the petitioner. The
wish of a child who is mature enough to form a view certainly deserves due
weight. Under the JJ Act, however, it is one of the relevant factors and not the
only factor. Section 37 of the JJ Act requires the CWC to consider the Social
Investigation Report along with the wishes of the child. The paramount
consideration remains the best interest of the child, which is one of the
fundamental principles recognised by Section 3 of the JJ Act. The wish of a
minor cannot, by itself, override the statutory scheme framed for her own
protection.
20. In the present case, several circumstances weigh against handing
over the detenue to the petitioner. The petitioner is the mother of the main
accused, who is facing trial for offences under Section 64 BNS and Section 6
of the POCSO Act, besides other offences. As per the challan (Annexure P-
1), the accused is on bail and is a resident of Aman Colony, Sri Muktsar
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 12
Sahib, where the petitioner also resides. Handing over the custody of the
detenue to the petitioner would, in effect, place her back in the family of the
accused. The trial is at the threshold. The detenue is the victim and the most
material witness in the case. At this stage, the apprehension of the State that
she may be influenced to depose in favour of the accused cannot be said to be
unfounded. It is also significant that the detenue was placed in the Children
Home on 02.03.2026, whereas the present petition was filed on 08.10.2026,
after a gap of more than seven months and after charges had been framed. No
explanation for this delay finds mention in the petition.
21. The claim of the petitioner rests on the alleged marriage of the
detenue with her son. However, no document regarding solemnization of any
marriage has been placed on record. According to the reply, no evidence of
marriage surfaced during investigation. Even if such a marriage is assumed
for the sake of argument, it would not alter the fact that the detenue is a child.
A claimed marriage does not take a child out of the protective scheme of the
JJ Act and the POCSO Act. The petitioner is neither the natural guardian nor
the legal guardian of the detenue. Under the JJ Act, the custody of a child in
need of care and protection can be given to a fit person or a fit facility only
after an inquiry by the CWC. The petitioner, therefore, has no enforceable
right to the custody of the detenue which could be secured through a writ of
habeas corpus.
22. The welfare of the infant daughter of the detenue, who is about
ten months old, is also a relevant consideration. The detenue and her daughter
are presently living together in the Children Home under the supervision of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 13
the CWC. There is nothing on record to suggest that they are being denied
proper care there.
23. With utmost respect, the facts of the present case are materially
different from those in Preeti's case (supra) and Chhalo Rani's case (supra) .
In Preeti's case (supra) , the FIR was under Sections 365, 379 and 506 IPC,
and no offence under the POCSO Act was involved. In Chhalo Rani's case
(supra) , the FIR was under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC and Section 8 of the
POCSO Act. In the present case, charges have been framed against the son of
the petitioner for offences under Section 64 BNS and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, and the detenue has given birth to a child. In Preeti's case
(supra) , the boy was himself about 18 years old, whereas the son of the
petitioner is about 37 years of age. In both those cases, the marriage was
prima facie shown to have been solemnized, while in the present case there is
no material on record regarding any marriage. Neither of those cases involved
a trial pending at the stage of prosecution evidence, or any apprehension of
the victim being influenced against the prosecution. The condition imposed in
Chhalo Rani's case (supra) , restraining the son of the petitioner from
consummating the marriage, would also be meaningless in the present case.
The cohabitation of the detenue with the son of the petitioner is itself the
subject matter of the charges against him. Handing over her custody to his
mother, while he is on bail, would expose the detenue to the very situation
from which the law seeks to protect her. It may also be noticed, with respect,
that the question of maintainability of a writ of habeas corpus against an
order of placement passed by the CWC, in the light of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manubhai Ratilal Patel's case (supra) , did not
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 14
arise for consideration in either of these judgments. Similarly, the remedy of
appeal available under Section 101 of the JJ Act was not considered therein.
These judgments, therefore, do not help the petitioner.
24. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner
do not advance her case. In Balwinder Singh @ Binder's case (supra) , this
Court held that even a minor girl cannot be detained in a Nari Niketan against
her wishes. That judgment was rendered before the enactment of the POCSO
Act and the JJ Act, 2015. The confinement in that case did not rest on an
order of a CWC passed under a statutory scheme meant for the protection of
child victims. Saroj's case (supra) is a judgment of the Allahabad High
Court, and the view taken therein has since been revisited by the Full Bench
of that Court in Rachna's case (supra) . The order dated 13.05.2013 passed in
Surekha's case (supra) , annexed as Annexure P-2, is only an interim order
calling for the trial Court record and directing production of the petitioner
therein. It does not lay down any proposition of law. In Rami Devi's case
(supra) , annexed as Annexure P-3, the detenue claimed on oath to be a major,
her date of birth being 09.02.1996, and the State counsel did not oppose her
release. That case did not involve a victim under the POCSO Act or an order
of a CWC, and the release was ordered without commenting upon the orders
under challenge. In the present case, the minority of the detenue is
undisputed, the State has opposed her release and her placement rests on an
order of the CWC under the JJ Act. These judgments are, therefore,
distinguishable on facts and do not help the petitioner.
25. At the same time, the detenue cannot be left without a remedy.
The placement of a child in a Children Home is subject to review by the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 15
CWC under the JJ Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is open to the
petitioner, or to the detenue herself, to approach the CWC for review of the
order of placement, or to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 101 of the
JJ Act. If any such proceeding is initiated, it shall be decided in accordance
with law after hearing the detenue and taking her wishes into account. The
Social Investigation Report and all other relevant circumstances, including
the pendency of the trial, shall also be kept in view.
26. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is found to
be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, subject to the following
directions:-
(i) The Superintendent, Children Home, Gandhi Vanita
Ashram, Jalandhar (respondent No. 4) shall ensure that the
detenue and her infant daughter are provided proper care,
medical attention and counselling. The detenue shall also
be provided the facility of education or vocational
training, as per the JJ Act and the rules framed thereunder.
(ii) It shall be open to the petitioner or the detenue to
approach the CWC or the appellate authority under the JJ
Act, as observed above. Any such proceeding shall be
decided on its own merits in accordance with law.
(iii) On attaining majority, the detenue shall be at liberty to
take a decision about her place of residence in accordance
with law.
(iv) Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRWP-12457-2026 (O&M) 16
trial. The trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of
the evidence led before it, uninfluenced by any
observation made in this order.
(v) A copy of this order be sent to the Child Welfare
Committee, Sri Muktsar Sahib and to respondent No. 4 for
information and compliance.


04.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document