“The investigation against accused persons have been concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Omwati and corpus Manish, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, as such, no ground is made out for entertaining this habeas corpus writ petition,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed in its July 21 order.

Briefly put, the petitioner (Omwati) approached the High Court alleging that her son, Manish (the corpus), was being kept in illegal detention by his wife, Sona (respondent no. 7), and her relatives.

The petitioner's counsel argued that despite an FIR being lodged under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 303(2) of BNS, neither the corpus has been traced out nor any action has been taken against the private respondents (in-laws of the son).

However, the State apprised the bench that there was a matrimonial dispute between the corpus and his wife and the corpus (Manish), and that his relatives demanded an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-.

It was further submitted that due to non-fulfilment of that demand, the wife of the corpus was subjected to mental and physical harassment and cruelty and was thrown out of her matrimonial home. The State also revealed that she was molested by the relatives of the corpus.

Consequently, to save herself from continued acts of cruelty and molestation, the wife returned to her parental home and lodged an FIR against her husband and in-laws under relevant Sections of BNS and the Dowry Prohibition Act against Manish and his relatives.

Upon perusing the records, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer in the dowry case had made sincere efforts to trace and apprehend the corpus, but he is actively absconding and failing to cooperate with the investigation.

The IO had even moved to obtain non-bailable warrants against him, and a charge sheet has already been filed against both Omwati and Manish.

In view of this, a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain stated that since the corpus is accused of committing an offence by the private respondents, he cannot be illegally detained by them.

The Court recorded:

"The investigation against accused persons have been concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Omwati and corpus Manish...as such, no ground is made out for entertaining this habeas corpus writ petition".

Before rejecting the petition, the Court relied upon various Supreme Court and High Court judgments regarding the scope of habeas corpus:

Union of India vs. Yumnam Anand M. (2007) and Home Secretary (Prison) vs. H. Nilofer Nisha (2020): In these cases, the Supreme Court had ruled that a petitioner must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention, which is the absolute prerequisite (sine qua non) for issuing the writ.

Satendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of UP (2011): In this case, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that a habeas corpus petition is not maintainable when a charge-sheeted accused is absconding to evade the police.

Netram Rawat vs. State of MP (2024): In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that entertaining a habeas corpus petition for an absconding criminal facing arrest warrants constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Against this backdrop, concluding that no grounds were made out to entertain the plea, the High Court dismissed the same.

Case title - Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446

Click here to read/download order