Dismissed¶16

Shaurya Mishra Thru. His Father Deepak Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2026HABC/30/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HABC No. 30 of 2026 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench | Rajeev Singh, J. | habeas corpus for detenue child residing with maternal grand parents | deponent-father charge-sheeted in F.I.R. No. 291 of 2024, Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar (charge sheet dated 04.03.2025) | reliance on Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi (SLP (Crl.) No. 14809 of 2024) noted but no interference made | petition dismissed March 9, 2026.

What did the court decide?

On consideration of the submissions, the contents of the petition, the F.I.R. and other relevant documents, it is evident that the deponent is the accused of killing of his wife, and it is also evident that the detenue is residing with his maternal grand parents. ¶15

Shaurya Mishra Thru. His Father Deepak Kumar Mishra vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of habeas corpus should issue commanding respondent nos. 4 and 5 to produce the petitioner/detenue before the Court and set him at liberty. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

No case for interference is made out; the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 30 of 2026 — Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 14 — Rajeev Singh, J. — Petitioner Shaurya Mishra, filed through his father Deepak Kumar Mishra, sought a writ of habeas corpus commanding respondent nos. 4 and 5 to produce the petitioner/detenue and set him at liberty. Counsel submitted that the deponent's marriage was solemnized with the daughter of the private respondents, the detenue was born of that wedlock, the daughter thereafter committed suicide, and F.I.R. No. 291 of 2024 under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar (charge sheet submitted) was lodged on allegedly concocted facts; relying on Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (SLP (Crl.) No. 14809 of 2024), counsel urged the biological father's right to meet the child. The learned A.G.A. opposed, stating that prior to the incident the deponent had come to the house of the private respondents and insisted on taking their daughter with him, that she died in an unnatural manner two days later, that the charge sheet against the deponent and his father was submitted on 04.03.2025, and that the relied-upon decision was not applicable. Holding it evident that the deponent is accused of killing his wife and that the detenue is residing with his maternal grand parents, the Court found no case for interference and dismissed the petition (decided March 9, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 30 of 2026

¶3

Shaurya Mishra Thru. His Father Deepak Kumar Mishra

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

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

¶10

This petition seeks for issuance of writ in nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to produce the petitioner/detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the deponent was solemnized with the daughter of private respondents, who were enjoying their matrimonial life and out of their wedlock, detenue was born. It is further submitted that daughter of private respondent committed suicide, but on the basis of concocted facts, F.I.R. No. 291 of 2024 was lodged under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, in which, charge sheet was submitted. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deponent is the biological father of the detenue, but he is not being allowed to meet with the detenue. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , (SLP (Crl.) No. 14809 of 2024), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deponent, being the biological father of the detenue, is having right to meet the child and, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶12

HABC No. 30 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Learned A.G.A., while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that prior to the date of incident, deponent came to the house of private respondents and insisted to send their daughter with him and after two days, she died in unnatural manner, for which, F.I.R. No. 291 of 2024 was lodged against the deponent and other persons. It is also submitted that after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the deponent and his father on 04.03.2025. Learned A.G.A. vehemently submits that considering the statements of witnesses, spot inspection, inquest report, post mortem report and viscera report etc., the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. It is, thus, submitted that no interference is required in this matter.

¶15

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the petition, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the deponent is the accused of killing of his wife. It is also evident that the detenue is residing with his maternal grand parents.

¶16

In view of above, no case for interference is made out. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶17

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶18

March 9, 2026 VKS

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shaurya Mishra Thru. His Father Deepak Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaurya Mishra Thru. His Father Deepak Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivanand and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Kaushlendra Pratap Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 3 Others

Sonal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Vijai Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education and 2 Others

Pawan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sofiya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another