Disposed¶33

Sisir Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Habeas Corpus – Minor victim girl – Rescue

Orissa HC16 Mar 2026WPCRL/48/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; minor victim girl; rescue and/or recovery; illegal custody; absconded from parental house; statement under Section 180 BNSS by IO; statement under Section 183 BNSS by SDJM Kamakshyanagar; IIC Kamakshyanagar Police Station; Brahmakumari Ashram Rourkela; arranged/forced marriage by father; self-disclosed age 18 years; attainment of majority; mother took custody from police; writ petition dropped; documents kept on record; State of Odisha; WPCRL No. 48 of 2025; order dated 16.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus dropped; the bunch of documents produced by the learned ASC kept on record. ¶33

Sisir Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus dropped; the bunch of documents produced by the learned ASC kept on record.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged minor victim girl, said to be in illegal custody, has been rescued and/or recovered. +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

Documents received from the IIC, Kamakshyanagar Police Station reveal that the victim girl has been rescued; the petitioner's wife was duly intimated and appeared before the police authorities.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The statements recorded under S.180 BNSS (by the IO) and S.183 BNSS (by the SDJM, Kamakshyanagar) are consistent; the victim categorically stated that her father was arranging her marriage and forced her to remain at home, and being neither prepared nor agreeable to marry at such age she fled, took shelter in a Brahmakumari Ashram at Rourkela, and later appeared before the police voluntarily.

¶26

Key takeaways

The victim girl disclosed her age as 18 years; the Court reasonably inferred she had attained majority, but since the incident was reported when she was a minor it had proceeded to treat her as a minor and passed diverse orders upon the authorities.ratio¶30
The documents forwarded to the Court reveal that the mother of the victim girl took her custody from the police authority; there is no justification for the petitioner-father's stand that she has not been rescued, and the Court safely proceeds on the basis that the girl has been rescued and integrated into the family.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus – Minor victim girl – Rescue – Petitioner (father) had sought tracing/rescue of his alleged minor daughter said to be absconding from the parental house; the Court had repeatedly ordered the Government to trace her and had redirected an investigation that was chasing unconnected persons. Documents from the IIC, Kamakshyanagar Police Station showed the girl had been rescued; her statements under S.180 BNSS (IO) and S.183 BNSS (SDJM, Kamakshyanagar) were consistent – she fled home because her father was arranging her marriage and forcing her to remain for the prospective groom family's visit, sheltered in a Brahmakumari Ashram at Rourkela, and voluntarily appeared before police. She disclosed her age as 18 years; the Court inferred majority but had treated her as a minor since the incident was reported while she was a minor. The mother took her custody from the police; the father's stand that she was not rescued found no justification. The writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus was dropped and the documents kept on record. (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, WPCRL No. 48 of 2025, order dt. 16.03.2026 – Harish Tandon, CJ and M.S. Raman, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPCRL No. 48 of 2025

¶3

Sisir Sahoo

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Ms. Biswabara Dash, Additional Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶12

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

16.03.2026

1. Time and again, orders were passed upon the Government

¶18

to take the utmost steps to trace out the alleged minor victim girl,

¶19

who appears to have been absconded from her parental house.

¶20

2. On one of such occasions, we noticed that the Investigating

¶21

Officer (IO) was chasing the fringe persons, who do not appear to have any complicity in taking the minor child in the illegal custody,

¶22

and we directed the investigation to be done in a positive and right direction.

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

3. Today, Ms. Biswabara Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State hands over a bunch of documents to the Court received from the IIC, Kamakshyanagar Police Station regarding the rescue and/or recovery of the victim girl.

¶25

4. From the above documents, it reveals that the said victim girl has been rescued. The wife of the petitioner was duly intimated and she appeared before the police authorities. The statement of the alleged minor victim girl was recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the Investigating Officer and subsequently under Section 183 of the BNSS by the SDJM, Kamakshyanagar.

¶26

5. Both the statements stand unison as we do not find any disparity and/or discrepancy therefrom. She vividly and categorically stated that the father was arranging a marriage for her and forced her to remain in the house as the prospective groom family may come to see her. Since she was neither prepared nor agreeable to undergo the marriage at such age, she fled away from the parental house and took

¶27

shelter in a Brahmakumari Ashram at Rourkela. She further deposed

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

that she was happy to remain there until she felt the absence of the parents and the emotional outbreak made her to appear before the police authorities voluntarily.

¶30

6. In the statement of the victim girl, she disclosed her age as 18 years and, therefore, we can reasonably infer that she has attained the majority. Since the alleged incident was reported when she was a minor, we proceeded to treat her as minor and passed diverse orders upon the authorities.

¶31

7. Be that as it may, since the girl has already been rescued and the documents forwarded to this Court reveal that the mother of the victim girl took her custody from the police authority, we do not find any justification in the stand of the petitioner being the father of the said girl that she has not been rescued. We appreciate the difficulty on the part of the counsel representing the petitioner in admitting those facts discerned from the documents produced before this Court, in absence of any instruction, but we cannot overlook the veracity of those documents authored by the officials and we can safely proceed on the basis that the girl has been rescued and integrated into the family.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

8. There remains nothing in the instant writ petition on the basis of the facts so discerned. The instant writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus is thus dropped. Let the bunch of documents produced by Ms. Dash, learned ASC before this Court be kept on record.

¶34

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶35

(M.S. Raman)

¶36

Judge

¶37

S. Behera

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Mar-2026 15:58:18

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Sisir Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sisir Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S J.P.S.Enterprises, Khurda Vs the Commissioner Ct and GST Bhubaneswar, Odisha

M/S Venkateswar Engineering Works Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Odisha

Swagat Panda Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Odisha, Cuttack

Basudeb Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Puspalata Das Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Saryug Gautam Construction Private Limited, Jharkhand Vs the Commissioner, Central GST and Ce Commissionerate, Rourkela