MP High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition as False, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost on Petitioner

The Gwalior Bench found the corpus was never in illegal detention and that the petition was filed to pressure police into halting their search for a murder accused.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Pushpendra Yadav, dismissed a habeas corpus petition on 14 May 2026, holding that it was filed on false grounds. The petitioner, Shailendra Singh, had alleged that his sister — the corpus — was being held in illegal detention by the police of Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior, along with three family members including a two-year-old child. After the corpus appeared in court and her account was tested against the pleadings, the bench concluded that the entire narrative had been fabricated to pressure the police into stopping their search for her husband, who is wanted in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the IPC. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000.

The Petition and the Allegation of Illegal Detention

Shailendra Singh, a resident of Datia, filed Writ Petition No. 17776 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus. He alleged that his sister, the corpus, had been kept in illegal custody by the respondent authorities since 10 May 2026. According to the petition, no FIR was communicated to the family and the corpus was not produced before any competent Magistrate. The petition also referred to CCTV footage of the incident, with photographs enclosed as Annexure P/3.

The corpus is a resident of Girgaon, District Gwalior. She had shifted to Shikshak Colony, Buzurg Road, Dabra, District Gwalior, and was staying at her sister's house. Her husband is wanted in a murder case and is absconding. She stated that police were regularly visiting her house in search of her husband and were harassing family members in the process.

Because the allegations were directed against the police authorities, the court on 12 May 2026 directed the State counsel to either produce the corpus or place the case diary before the court in a sealed cover in the afternoon session. Yashwant Goyal, SHO, Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior, appeared with the case diary in a sealed cover. He denied that the corpus had been taken into illegal detention on 11 May 2026 and sought a day's time to file a reply. The court granted time and directed the police to search for the missing corpus, listing the matter for 14 May 2026.

What the Corpus Said in Open Court

When the matter was taken up on 14 May 2026, the Government Advocate informed the bench that the corpus was in her own house but was unwilling to come to court, with a police party standing outside. Counsel for the petitioner undertook to produce the corpus before the court by 1:00 p.m., noting that Dabra is approximately 50 kilometres from the court. The corpus appeared at 1:00 p.m. along with her two-year-old son.

Before the bench, the corpus gave a detailed account. She said that on 10 May 2026 at about 4:00 p.m., she was taken by police and kept at an unknown place — not at Police Station Maharajpura. Her family members went to the police station and were then taken to the unknown location. She alleged that police demanded ₹1,00,000 from her family for her release. She was released at about 9 p.m. on 10 May 2026 and returned home with her sister and other family members.

She further stated that on 11 May 2026 at about 10:00 a.m., police again took her away — this time without a lady constable — along with three family members, and kept her at the same unknown place. Shamu Gurjar was badly beaten by police. She said she was released on 12 May 2026 at 4:00 p.m. and that the police themselves brought her back to her house. She added that she was unaware of the habeas corpus petition and had therefore not appeared on her own.

How the Bench Tested the Account

The bench identified several inconsistencies that it found impossible to reconcile.

The corpus repeatedly refused to disclose the location where she claimed to have been detained on 10, 11, and 12 May 2026, saying only that it was an unknown place. The bench found this implausible: her sister and other family members had themselves visited that location after being directed there by Police Station Maharajpura, yet the corpus could not identify it even when pressed by the court.

The allegation of a ₹1,00,000 demand appeared nowhere in the writ petition. The petitioner is the corpus's real brother. The bench observed that if such a demand had been made from family members, the petitioner would have known of it and would have included it in the petition. Its absence led the bench to conclude that the allegation was false and an afterthought.

The petition pleaded that the corpus had been in illegal custody since 10 May 2026. The petition also referred to CCTV footage. The bench asked why, if CCTV cameras were installed at or near the sister's house and had captured the incident on 10 May 2026, neither the petitioner nor the corpus had collected footage from 11 and 12 May 2026 to corroborate the claim that she was taken away again on those dates.

The petitioner admitted that he had informed his counsel of the corpus's return on 12 May 2026, again on 13 May 2026, and again on the morning of 14 May 2026. Yet no amendment application was filed to update the court on her return or to formally press the allegations she made in open court. When the case was called in the morning of 14 May 2026, counsel for the petitioner did not disclose that the corpus had returned home. It was only on information given by the State counsel that the court came to know she was at her house. The bench found that this amounted to an attempt to suppress a material fact.

The petitioner also did not visit his sister in Dabra after she was released on 12 May 2026, even though he passes through Dabra on his way from Datia to Gwalior. The bench noted that the corpus refused to accompany the police to court in the morning but came willingly with her brother, the petitioner, in the afternoon — a circumstance it found telling.

The Court's Finding on Motive

The bench concluded that the corpus was never taken by police on 11 May 2026 and was never kept at any police station or other place on 11 or 12 May 2026. There was therefore no question of her being released by police on 12 May 2026 at 4:00 p.m.

The bench held that “the entire story has been developed by the corpus with the help of her brother Shailendra Singh” to pressure the police into stopping their search for her husband, who is wanted in a murder case. It described the petition as a misuse of the lawful authority of the court and said such conduct had to be “checked with iron hands,” failing which police would not be able to discharge their duties.

Order

The Division Bench dismissed Writ Petition No. 17776 of 2026 with costs of ₹50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only), to be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of the High Court within one month from 14 May 2026.

The court made clear that if the cost is not deposited within the stipulated period, the Principal Registrar of the court will initiate proceedings for recovery of the cost and shall also register a case for contempt of court.