'Attempt To Stop Police Search For Murder Accused Brother-In-Law' MP High Court Fines Man ₹50K For Filing Fake Plea Over Sister's Detention

The Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on a man who had filed a habeas corpus plea claiming that his sister was illegally detained, observing that it seemed that the entire story was developed by the siblings in order to stop the police from looking for the sister's husband who is wanted in a murder case.

The petition was filed by the corpus's brother, Shalinder Singh, who alleged that his sister, along with three family members were illegally detained by Maharajpura Police Station in Gwalior.

After the sister was produced before the division bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Pushpendra Yadav , the bench in its order observed that the she had alleged that on May 10, May 11 and May 12 she was kept at an "unknown place" though not in the police station; however in spite of repeated requests by the Court, "she did not disclose the place where she was kept by the police".

The bench noted that the corpus made a specific statement that while she was being released, the police had demanded Rs. 1 Lakh from her family members and they had reached "the unknown place" on information given by the police where she was allegedly detained.

It thereafter said:

"It is really surprising that the sister and other family members of the corpus had visited the unknown place where, according to the corpus, she was detained by the police, yet, even today, the corpus was not in a position to disclose the place where according to her she was detained by the police. This clearly shows that the corpus is telling a lie before the Court.

Even otherwise, if all the allegations were right, then no one had prevented the petitioner from filing an application for amendment on affidavit making an allegation of demand of ₹1,00,000/- as well as disclosing the fact that the corpus has returned back to her house on 12-05-2026 at 04:00 p.m. Although petitioner has specifically stated that he had talked to the counsel thrice, but why the amendment application was not filed is not known".

The bench also noted that the whent the matter was heard in the morning, the brother's counsel did not disclose that the sister had come back and was staying in her house; and it was State's counsel which had informed the court of this development.

"If the corpus was honest, then it was expected from counsel for petitioner that immediately after the case was called, he should have informed the Court that although the corpus has returned back, but there were certain atrocities and illegal detention by police, but that was not done and again, an attempt was made to suppress the fact that the corpus is at her house. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that in fact the corpus was never taken by police on 11-05-2026 and she was never kept by police at the police station or any other place and, therefore, there was no question of release of corpus by police on 12-05-2026 at 04:00 p.m.

It appears that the entire story has been developed by the corpus with the help of her brother Shailendra Singh in order to pressurize the police to stop looking for her husband who is wanted in a case of murder. In fact, this petition appears to be a misuse of lawful authority of this Court and it has to be checked with iron hands, otherwise the police will not be in a position to discharge its duties"

When the case was first heard, the court had directed the State to either produce the sister or place the relevant case diary on record. In the subsequent hearing, the State informed the court that the sister was at her residence and had refused to accompany the police to the court.

The bench therefore directed the petitioner to ensure her presence before the Court at 1:00 pm. When the matter was taken up again, the court noted that the sister's husband was accused of a murder case and was absconding.

According to the corpus, the police had been frequently visiting her residence in search of her husband and harassing the family. Therefore, she shifted to her sister's house.

The corpus further alleged that she was first taken into custody on May 10 without any FIR being communicated to her family. It was further claimed that when the family members reached out to know her whereabouts, as she was not kept in the police station but at some unknown location, the police officers demanded ₹1 Lakh as illegal gratification for her release.

However, she was later released on the same day, just to be detained again on May 11, 2026. On May 11, 2026, the corpus, along with three other family members, including her 2-year-old minor son, was illegally detained.

The corpus further submitted that she was unaware that her brother filed a habeas corpus and therefore did not know that she was required to appear before the court.

The court noted that although the petitioner claimed that he informed his counsel on May 12, 13 and the morning of 14 May, that the corpus had already returned home, no application was filed disclosing the same to the court.

The petitioner admitted that despite knowing that the corpus had returned to her residence on May 12, he had not met her or taken steps to ensure her appearance before the Court.

The bench found several inconsistencies in the version put forward by the petitioner and the corpus. Regarding the demand of 1 lakh, the court noted that no allegation with regard to such demand was made in the writ petition.

"Therefore, it is clear that the allegation made by the corpus that an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was demanded by the police for releasing the corpus on 10-05-2026 is false and an afterthought," the court said.

The court further noted that despite claiming that she was illegally detained at an unknown location, the corpus was unable to identify the location despite visiting the location twice.

Examining the CCTV footage, the court noted that while the petitioner relied on these images to show the corpus was taken away, no footage was produced showing her illegal detention and release.

Taking note of the circumstances, the bench held that the allegations of illegal detention were not credible. The bench concluded that the alleged circumstances appear to be a fabricated story made up by the corpus with assistance from her brother (the petitioner) in an attempt to thwart the police's search into her absconding husband, wanted in a murder trial.

Therefore, the bench imposed a cost of ₹50,000 upon the petitioner while warning the petitioner that failure to deposit the cost would result in recovery proceedings as well as initiation of contempt proceedings.

Accordingly, the bench dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Shailendra Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-17776-2026

For Petitioner: Advocate Priyanshu Yadav

For State: Government Advocate CP Singh

Click here to read/download the Order