Raheela v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jan 2026CRWP/518/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Justice Subhas MehlA; decided 30.01.2026; habeas corpus writ petition Article 226/227 Constitution of India; Warrant Officer appointment; alleged illegal confinement by respondents No.4 to 8; detenues Rafiq and Nasir; Village Kukarpari, Police Station Jurheda, District Deeg, Rajasthan; affidavit of DSP Punhana, District Nuh; order dated 15.01.2026; petition dismissed, no further order required.

What did the court decide?

In view of the statement made (that the application arose from a misunderstanding and the detenues had been brought back by the Haryana/Rajasthan Police), no further order was required to be passed, and the petition was dismissed. ¶22-23

Raheela Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

�� -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

��

¶4

�� Decided on: 30.01.2026

��

��…...Petitioner

Versus

��

� …...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present: ��

��

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

¶15

�� The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for appointing a Warrant Officer to visit the spot i.e. Village Kukarpari, Police Station Jurheda, District Deeg, Rajasthan and to release detenues from illegal confinement of respondents No.4 to 8.

¶16

�� In compliance of order dated 15.01.2026, reply by way of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police Punhana Nuh, District Nuh on behalf of respondent-State has been filed in Court which is taken on record.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State submitted that statements of

¶18

the petitioner as well as the detenues namely Rafiq and Nasir have been

¶19

SONIA PURI 2026.02.04 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

�� -2-

¶21

recorded wherein it is stated that the application was submitted by the petitioner due to some misunderstanding, however the detenues have been brought back by the Haryana/ Rajasthan Police.

¶22

In view of the statement made, no further order is required to

¶23

be passed and hence, the present petition is dismissed.

¶24

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE

¶25

30.01.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO

¶26

SONIA PURI 2026.02.04 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raheela v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raheela v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseeb Singh Vs Vikasdeep Arora

Mr Tribhuwan Kumar Parnami Vs Mrs Tripta Mehta

Daawat Foods Ltd. Vs M/S Janak Raj Rajnish Kumar & Ors.

Gurvinder Singh @ Gaggu Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Singh @ Jagga Vs State of Haryana

Roshandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab