[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Geeta Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (HB) (DB) No.806 of 2025
-----
Geeta Sharma ....... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.6-10 : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate
------
th
Order No.03/Dated: 20 February, 2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the
nature of Habeas Corpus or any other suitable writ or direction,
directing the concerned respondents to produce the sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) of the petitioner namely, Geeta Devi wife of Satyendra
Kuamr aged about 58 Years who has been in forceful custody of
respondent nos. 6 to 10 and their family members since
28.09.2024, before this Hon'ble Court.
And/Or
(ii) For issuance of such other writ/writs, order/orders
direction/directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It has been contended by Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the writ
petitioner is in great difficulty subjected to torture by her daughter-in-
law, namely, Smt. Punam Kumari, the respondent no.6 herein. It has
been contended that after the death of the husband, the son, daughter
and father-in-law of the respondent no.6 now only survival is the
sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the writ petitioner.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner is worried about her well-being
as also apprehending that she will be killed for the purpose of getting
the insurance amount as also the other immovable properties as per
the statement made to that effect in paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the
writ petition. The age of the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the petitioner
has been said to be about 58 years who is living in Dhurwa area.
4. In pursuance to the notice issued by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 14.01.2026, Mr. Saket Upadhyay, the learned
counsel has appeared to represent the respondent nos. 6 to 10.
5. This Court, in view of the above, particularly, taking into
consideration the allegation of ill treatment for the purpose of getting
the insurance amount and other immovable properties thought it
proper to call upon the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the writ petitioner
today itself so as to meet with her and have an interaction to assess
things.
6. The matter is being posted at 3:00 PM today itself to be taken up as
first case in Chamber.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated:20.02.2026.
Sudhir
Later on:
7. We have interacted almost about 20 minutes with the Corpus, i.e., the
mother-in-law of the respondent no.6 in the Chamber.
8. We have interacted in all the issues including the suffering which she
had met in which all the family members, i.e., her husband, her son
and her daughter had died in a road accident.
9. She has stated that she also sustained serious injuries and become
unconscious and even she had not been apprised about the casualties
which she had suffered after death of three members of her family.
10.This Court has specially put a query in order to have the view with
respect to any coercion by the respondent no.6 upon the Corpus (the
mother-in-law) with respect to any greed of money.
11. She has stated that this is the false allegation and think sort of
behaviour which is being meted out with her by her daughter-in-law,
rather she has stated that her daughter-in-law (respondent no.6 herein)
even is a Dental Surgeon but in order to take her care, she used to live
in the house and simultaneously for the purpose of earning some
money so that the house may run she used to have some consultation
work. She has stated that her daughter-in-law is also living the
miserable life after the death of her husband in the said road accident.
12. This Court has also interacted with respect to the issue of bad
relationship with the sister-in-law, i.e., the writ petitioner herein.
13. She has stated that she is having no difficulty in having talking term
to her, but whenever she used to come to Ranchi she used to quarrel
and created very bad situation making the life more miserable.
14. The daughter-in-law has also stated that the attempt was taken even
to insert poison to her mother-in-law on the pretext of the fact that
why she had survived in the said road accident.
15. This Court after having interacted with the Corpus (mother-in-law of
the respondent no.6) thereafter has called upon the daughter-in-law
also.
16. She has stated that she is living and leading her life only to maintain
her mother-in-law.
17. This Court thereafter has called upon the learned counsel for both the
parties, who have appeared. Thereafter, this Court has started
dictating the order as has been referred hereinabove in their presence.
18. This Court, considering the aforesaid statement having been
recorded, is of the view that it is not a case where any relief is to be
granted to the writ petitioner.
19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated:20.02.2026.
Sudhir
