Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court, in a scathing judgment delivered on November 28, 2025, allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Smt. Saniya and Vikas alias Ramkishan, ordering the immediate release of Smt. Saniya from the State-run Protection Home. The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar raised serious objections to the conduct of the Muzaffarnagar Police, which allegedly violated a court-mandated stay on arrest and referred to the woman as being taken into “kabza police” (police possession).
The case stemmed from two First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged by the woman’s father, Muneer, after Saniya—who claims to be a major—left home to solemnize her marriage with Vikas. The second FIR, lodged on June 29, 2025, prompted Saniya and Vikas to file a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition in which the High Court, vide order dated August 13, 2025, stayed their arrest.
Despite being cognizant of the stay order, the police proceeded to take the first petitioner into custody on September 8, 2025. The Court took “serious umbrage” at this violation, observing:
“The foremost issue, to which we take serious umbrage in this case, is that the first petitioner was deprived of her liberty, virtually taken into custody and effectively arrested in violation of the stay order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13.08.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17045 of 2025, where the first petitioner is also a petitioner and this Court has restrained the Police from arresting any of the petitioners, including petitioner no. 1, Saniya.”
The Bench also strongly condemned the language used by the Investigating Officer. Highlighting the misuse of terminology, the Court remarked:
“The second issue, to which we take serious objection, is that in the case diary, the Police have effectively arrested the petitioner by describing it, in the manner, that they are taking her into kabza police. They have not stopped at that and prepared a memorandum of possession relating to the first petitioner, which they have made Vikas sign.”
The Court emphasized the dehumanizing nature of the action, stating:
“‘Kabza’ is a word which connotes most closely to the English word ‘possession’ in legal and common parlance, both. It is reserved for chattels, not humans. If any doubt could be extended to benefit the intention of the Police, they have effectively stamped it out by drawing up a fard or memo of possession relating to a human being. The idea—and the action; the idea more than the action—are both abhorrable.”
Regarding the determination of Saniya’s age, the Court rejected the school records showing a date of birth of 25.04.2009 as unreliable because the entry was based on the Aadhaar Card. The Principal of the school, Anil Kumar Singh, present in court with the original records, confirmed that the date had been entered based on the Aadhaar Card. The Court noted:
“Now, it is well known that the date of birth entered in the Aadhaar Card hardly affords any basis to ascertain a person’s date of birth. Dates of birth mentioned on the Aadhaar Card are recorded on the mere saying of the head of a family or the person who is applying for the Card to be made.”
Consequently, the Court relied on the medico-legal estimation report dated September 10, 2025, which opined that Saniya was about eighteen years old, based on an ossification test and dental development. Applying the well-settled principle of two years’ variation, the Court held:
“Considering the well-settled principle that a medically estimated age can have a variation of two years on either side, but has to be construed in a manner that is exculpatory, we hold the detenue to be a major aged eighteen years or more.”
Upon ascertaining the detenue’s stand in open court—where she unequivocally stated her wish to go and stay with Vikas and not her parents—the Court upheld her constitutional right:
“The detenue, being an adult, is free to go anywhere that she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants… This is a right which inheres in every citizen of India who is a major, and it cannot be interfered with by anyone, including the State, acting at someone’s instance like the detenue’s parents.”
The Court ordered an inquiry into the matter by the National Commission for Women and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, to file a personal affidavit explaining the conduct of his subordinates. The habeas corpus petition was accordingly allowed, and Saniya was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
Case Details:
Case Name: Smt. Saniya and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J. and Hon’ble Sanjiv Kumar, J.
Date of Order: November 28, 2025
Petitioners’ Advocates: Arjit Srivastava, Usha Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Srivastava
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
