Mohammad Sartaj and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohammad Sartaj and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Habeas corpus relief denied (petition dismissed); however, petitioner no.1 (father of the corpus) was granted visitation rights to meet the corpus every Sunday of each month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., meetings to occur at a common place (park/restaurant/mall/temple etc.), with respondent nos. 4 to 7 directed not to hinder them.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner no.1 (Mohammad Sartaj) is entitled to custody of petitioner no.2, the minor corpus Mohammad Bilal, alleged to be illegally detained by respondent nos. 4 to 7. +1 more

Court's answer

Relying on the observations in Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu ((2008) 9 SCC 413) and the Coordinate Bench decision in Shaurya Gautam v. State of U.P. (2020 SCC Online All 1372), the Court held that involvement of a natural guardian in a criminal case relating to the death of a spouse is an important consideration in determining the welfare of the minor; accordingly, petitioner no.1, who faces trial for the murder of his wife, is not entitled to the minor's custody at least at this stage, and hardly any case of illegal detention was made out.

Ratio / Principle

Upon the post-dismissal prayer, petitioner no.1 (father of the corpus) was given visitation rights to meet the corpus on every Sunday of each month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m.

Key takeaways

Respondent nos. 4 to 7 were directed that they will not create any hindrance or disturbance in the meeting of petitioner no.1 (father) with the corpus.ratio¶8
The meetings between petitioner no.1 (father) and the corpus are to take place at a common place such as park/restaurant/mall/temple etc.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 103 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 11.2.2025; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:19973) - Petitioner no.1 (Mohammad Sartaj, father) sought production/custody of his minor son (corpus Mohammad Bilal, petitioner no.2) allegedly illegally detained by respondent nos. 4 to 7. Learned AGA objected that petitioner no.1 is facing trial on a charge of murder of his wife. Relying on Nil Ratan Kundu Vs. Abhijit Kundu [(2008) 9 SCC 413], followed in Shaurya Gautam Vs. State of U.P. [2020 SCC Online All 1372], wherein involvement of a natural guardian in a criminal case relating to the death of a spouse was held to be an important consideration in determining the welfare of the minor, the Court found the petitioner not entitled to the minor's custody at least at that stage, and that hardly any case of illegal detention was made out; the petition was dismissed. Thereafter, on counsel's request, the father was accorded visitation rights to meet the corpus on every Sunday of each month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., meetings confined to a common place such as park/restaurant/mall/temple, with respondent nos. 4 to 7 directed not to create any hindrance or disturbance.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19973

Court No. - 79

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 103 of 2025

Petitioner :- Mohammad Sartaj And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bed Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Bed Kant Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner no.1 (father of petitioner no.1/corpus) and Sri Pawan Srivastava, learned AGA.

By means of present petition, petitioner no.1 is seeking the following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent no.4 to 7 to produce the petitioner no.2 (corpus Mohammad Bilal) before this Hon'ble Court who has illegally been detained by the respondent no.4 to 7."

At the very outset, learned AGA apprised the Court that petitioner no.1 is facing trial on a charge of murder of his wife and as such, custody of his minor son (corpus) may not be handed over to him.

Considering the preliminary objection raised by learned AGA and the observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nil Ratan Kundu Vs. Abhijit Kundu [(2008) 9 SCC 413] which has also been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shaurya Gautam Vs. State of U.P. [2020 SCC Online All 1372] , wherein the involvement of a natural guardian, in a criminal case relating to the death of a spouse, was held to be an important consideration while determining the question of welfare of the minor and as such, this Court does not think that petitioner is entitled to the minor's custody, at least at this stage, when he is facing criminal charges, moreover there is hardly any case made out of illegal detention.

In view thereof, the present petition stands dismissed .

After dismissal of the petition, learned counsel for petitioner no.1 requested to extend visitation rights in favour of father of

corpus.

Considering the said prayer, petitioner no.1/father of corpus is hereby given visitation rights to meet the corpus on every Sunday of each month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m.

Respondent nos.4 to 7 are also directed that they will not create any hindrance or disturbance in meeting of petitioner no.1/father with the corpus. It is made clear that meeting shall take place at common place such as park/restaurant/mall/temple etc.

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Vivek Kr.

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad