Dismissed¶8

Mohd. Shad Thru. His Father Mo. Ajeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2026HABC/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus writ petition (HABC No. 26 of 2026) dismissed as misconceived by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajeev Singh, J., 27.01.2026); alleged illegal custody of detenue Mohd. Shad by an unknown lady demanding Rs. 5 lakhs not interfered with; police report dated 23.01.2026 (SI Upendra Yadav, P.S. Rahimabad, Lucknow) noted Shaheen d/o Taj Mohammad allured by Md. Shad and missing report Serial No. 118/2025 dated 12.09.2025 with Maharashtra Police, investigation ongoing; no case for interference made out.

What did the court decide?

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court held that no case for interference is made out. ¶7

Mohd. Shad Thru. His Father Mo. Ajeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 26 of 2026

¶3

Mohd. Shad Thru. His Father Mo. Ajeem

¶4

…..Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others

¶7

…..Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhanu Singh, Rajesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.,

¶9

Court No. - 14

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶13

"Issue a writ, order in the nature of HABEAS CORPUS directing the opposite parties to produce the corpus of detenue before this Hon'ble Court and hand over the detenue/petitioner to his father after taking her statement as well as wish."

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 18.08.2025, the detenue went to Mumbai in relation to some employment. He further submits that on 16.01.2026, the deponent received a call on his mobile no. 9076823082 from one unknown lady whose mobile number was 8482863512, and she was told that her son was in the custody of that lady and she was also asked amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash, thereafter, a complaint was given to the police, but concocted report has been submitted, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

¶15

¶16

HABC No. - 26 of 2026

¶17

4. Sri Vivek Gupta, learned A.G.A. has placed written instruction/report dated 23.01.2026 duly signed by Mr. Upendra Yadav, Sub Inspector, P.S.- Rahimabad, Lucknow, which is taken on record.

¶18

5. Learned A.G.A., on the basis of aforesaid report, submits that the aforesaid report reveals that on the complaint given by the deponent, inquiry was conducted and it was found that one girl Shaheen d/o Taj Mohammad was allured by Md. Shad, and report of the incident was given to Maharashtra Police, regarding which, inquiry was conducted. He further submits that the report also reveals that the aforesaid Sub Inspector also talked with Datta Panwar, officer of Maharashtra Police, who was informed that missing report related to Shaheen is registered at Serial No. 118/2025 on 12.09.2025 and investigation is going on.

¶19

6. The report dated 23.01.2026 duly signed by Mr. Upendra Yadav, Sub Inspector, P.S.- Rahimabad, Lucknow is as under:-

¶20

¶21

HABC No. - 26 of 2026

¶22

¶23

HABC No. - 26 of 2026

¶24

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out.

¶25

8. With the above observations, the application, being misconceived, is dismissed .

¶26

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶27

January 27, 2026 Arpan

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shad Thru. His Father Mo. Ajeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shad Thru. His Father Mo. Ajeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asharaph and 25 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Basic Education Deptt. ,Lko. and Others

Meena Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education and 7 Others

Rajesh Chandra Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunications New Delhi and 2 Others

Praveen Kumar and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko and 6 Others

Rehana Hafeez vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Section 5 Lko and 4 Others