JUDGMENT 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing release of the petitioner from respondent no. 4 facility. 2. Order dated 31st March, 2016 notices the gist of the issue raised by way of this petition. The order reads as under: - "1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing release of the petitioner from respondent no.4. 2. Allegedly, the petition has been filed through husband of the petitioner. 3. It has been pleaded that Case Crime No.493 of 2015 has been registered under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao. In the course of investigation, statement of the petitioner has been recorded under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been placed on record as Annexure 1. As per the statement, the petitioner had not been kidnapped, rather had gone with Raj Kishore @ Rahul of her free will. It has been pleaded that respondents no.5 and 6 have not accepted the marriage of the petitioners and therefore, criminal proceedings have been initiated and the petitioner has been housed in respondent no.4 facility. 4. Issue notice to serve respondents no.5 and 6 returnable on 25.04.2016. 5. Investigating officer of the Case Crime No.493 of 2015 (supra) is directed to file his affidavit. 6. Let the petitioner be produced in Court by respondent no.4 on the given date. 7. Respondents no. 5 and 6 shall also remain present. 8. In the meantime, the deponent is directed to bring on record the order under which the detenue has been housed in respondent no.4 facility. 9. List on 25.04.2016. " 3. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the prosecution in Court, which is taken on record. In the affidavit it has been stated that medical age of the detenue/prosecutrix is 19 years. In the statement of the detenue/prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC in pursuance to investigation of Case Crime No. 493 of 2015 (supra), the prosecutrix has given statement to the effect that on 7th December, 2015 she left her house of her free will. Raj Kishore alias Rahul did not even know that fact. The prosecutrix went to Delhi and spoke to Raj Kishore alias Rahul and asked him to take her away. Raj Kishore alias Rahul did not even know that fact. The prosecutrix went to Delhi and spoke to Raj Kishore alias Rahul and asked him to take her away. Raj Kishore alias Rahul has not done anything wrong. 4. On perusal of the statement it becomes evident that the detenue/prosecutrix had not been kidnapped. 5. In deference to order of the Court the petitioner has been produced. 6. In the considered opinion of the Court the detenue/prosecutrix has attained maturity to take a decision in regard to her future. The detenue/prosecutrix has stated that she does not want to go in the company of her parents, rather she wants to live in her matrimonial home with Raj Kishore alias Rahul. 7. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 to the effect that detenue/prosecutrix had been kidnapped/enticed by Raj Kishore alias Rahul. It has also been asserted that the detenue/prosecutrix is a minor. 8. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as they emanate from the record. 9. Considering the medical age of the detenue/prosecutrix and her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the detenue/prosecutrix is covered by judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.156 (H/C) of 2015 titled 'Smt. Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others' decided on 17.09.2015. The following has been held in the relevant portion of the said judgment: - "21- We are coming across a large number of cases in which parent/ parents of a girl do not accept marriage of choice of their daughter, on account of different reasons, be it the caste , financial conditions, social status or religion. Although, the girl elopes with the boy voluntarily, however, criminal proceedings are initiated with allegation of abduction, kidnapping or inducing the girl to get married. In most of such cases the complainant takes a ground that his daughter is a minor. For showing that his or her daughter is a minor, school certificates are relied upon. 22- The facts and circumstances of the present case are required to be considered in context of the law, as noticed above. While considering the same, the Court is required to take into account the most Cherished Right of a citizen of the country, which is personal liberty. 22- The facts and circumstances of the present case are required to be considered in context of the law, as noticed above. While considering the same, the Court is required to take into account the most Cherished Right of a citizen of the country, which is personal liberty. 23- As noticed above, various documents have come on record indicating different dates of birthge of the petitioner. Be that as it may, there is a conflict between the age of the petitioner determined on the basis of school documents, and the age assessed through ossification test. The Court is required to lean towards the report furnished by the Doctor, on the basis of scientific tests. This is particularly so because liberty of the petitioner is required to be protected, it being most precious Constitutional Right of the petitioner. 24- Considering the law laid down by this Court in Shaheen Parveen's case (Supra), as noticed above, it becomes prima-facie evident that the petitioner had neither been abducted nor kidnapped or induced by Suneel Kumar Singh. Rather statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that the petitioner had gone with Bauwa alias Suneel Kumar of her free will and voluntarily. Prima-facie, therefore, this Court concludes that offence has not been committed in context of the petitioner. Surely, the petitioner is not an accused. Under the circumstances, we are faced with a situation wherein liberty of an alleged victim has been curtailed under the direction of the Magistrate. 25- Considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Juhi Devi's case (Supra) as extracted above, it becomes evident that in such cases reliance can safely be placed on the opinion of the Doctors in context of age of the girl, when the age recorded in school certificate(s) is at variance. 26- We have considered that there is consistency in the results of medical/ossification test reports, whereas the basis of making entry in school record in regard to date of birth, is generally not brought on record. In the circumstances, so as to consider whether a person has attained age of majorityge of discretion in cases such as the present one, it is safer to rely on medical /scientific/ossification test reports. In the circumstances, so as to consider whether a person has attained age of majorityge of discretion in cases such as the present one, it is safer to rely on medical /scientific/ossification test reports. 27- Perusal of the judgment rendered in Smt. Reena's case (Supra), as extracted above, shows that age cannot be held to be a relevant consideration, while considering Personal Liberty of a person. A person living in India has a Right to enjoy his or her liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Any order which curtails or encroaches upon the liberty of such a person is required to be struck down, if it is not in accordance with procedure established by law. 28- Article 21 of the Constitution of India promises every citizen that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Petitioner not being an accused, it cannot be held that her personal liberty has been curtailed as per procedure prescribed by law. This is particularly so because she apparently has attained age of discretion and has asserted her right to get married of her own choice. 29- While considering a petition filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, the writ court is not required to go into the complexities of law, once it is made evident to the Court that personal liberty of a citizen has been curtailed. A writ court cannot contemplate any limitation on its power to deliver substantial justice. Equity justifies bending the Rules, where fair play is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice." 10. We are of the opinion that liberty of the detenue/prosecutrix has been curtailed without any legal cause. Criminal proceedings have been initiated only because the private respondents have not accepted marriage of the detenue/prosecutrix with Raj Kishore alias Rahul. 11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 12. Respondent no. 4 is hereby directed to release the detenue/prosecutrix forthwith and allow her to go and live as per her wish. 13. Let a copy of this order be released under the signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court.