[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Yogesh Kumar Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13647-DB
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
NAFR
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CHANDRA
WPHC No. 5 of 2026
Yogesh Kumar Sonkar S/o Shri Yashwant Sonkar, Aged About 42 Years
R/o Village Khursipar, Tehsil And District- Balod (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Superintendent of Police, District- Balod (C.G.)
3 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District- Balod
(C.G.)
4 - Lalji Sonkar R/o Village Khursipar, District- Balod (C.G.)
5 - Devendra Sonkar R/o Village Khursipar, District- Balod (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate
/State
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
23.03.2026
1 Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :-
"10.1 Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing
Respondents to produce petitioner's minor child
Fanish Sonkar before this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 Restore custody of the minor child to the
Petitioner.
10.3 Direct the Police Authorities to provide
protection to the Petitioner and to take appropriate
action against the Respondent no. 4 and 5.
10.4 Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest
of justice."
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner,
being the biological father and natural guardian of the minor child,
Master Fanish Sonkar, had lawful custody of the child, who has
been forcibly taken away by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 along with
others on 09.02.2026 during a meeting convened to resolve
matrimonial disputes. It is submitted that although proceedings
were earlier initiated before the Family Court, Balod by the
Petitioner's wife, the same have since been withdrawn; however,
despite this, the private respondents have illegally abducted and
continue to wrongfully detain the minor child. He also submitted
though a written complaint has been given to the Superintendent
of Police, Balod, narrating the facts of abduction, illegal
confinement, threats and intimidation by Respondent No.4 and
others, but no effective action has been taken till date. It is
further submitted that the continued illegal detention of the minor
child is in clear violation of his fundamental rights under Articles
21 and 21A of the Constitution of India and is adversely affecting
his welfare and education. The Petitioner, being the natural
guardian, is legally entitled to the custody of the minor child, and
having no other efficacious remedy, seeks indulgence of this
Hon'ble Court for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for
immediate restoration of custody.
4 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid
submission and submitted that the allegations of illegal abduction
and wrongful confinement are wholly misconceived and devoid of
merit. It is submitted that the minor child is not in illegal custody of
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but is presently residing with his
mother at her parental home out of her own free will. In this
regard, he has placed on record a letter dated 13.03.2026 issued
by the SHO, Police Station Balod, addressed to the
Superintendent of Police, Balod, wherein it has been specifically
stated that the minor child is living with his mother. It is further
submitted that the said position is duly corroborated by the
statement of the mother, which has also been placed on record,
as such, no case for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus is made
out, as there is no illegal detention of the minor child. The present
petition is thus liable to be dismissed.
5 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds that the core
issue pertains to the custody of a minor child. The stand of the
State, supported by the letter dated 13.03.2026 issued by the
SHO, Police Station Balod and the statement of the mother,
indicates that the minor child is presently residing with his mother
at her parental home and is not in illegal detention. In such
circumstances, the essential ingredient for issuance of a writ of
Habeas Corpus, namely unlawful or illegal detention, is not made
out.
6 It is well settled that in matters relating to custody of a minor child,
the appropriate remedy lies under the provisions of the Guardians
and Wards Act, where detailed adjudication on the welfare of the
child can be undertaken.
7 Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. However,
liberty is granted to the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedy
under the Guardians and Wards Act, if so aggrieved with regard to
the custody of the minor child.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
