JUDGMENT 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No.4 (Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Lucknow) to release the petitioner. The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 11.3.2016 vide which the petitioner has been housed in respondent No. 4 facility. 2. Gist of the issue raised by way of this petition is recorded in order dated 18.4.2016. The order reads as under: - "1.The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent No.4 to release the petitioner. 2.It has been pleaded that liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without any legal cause.The petitioner got married to the deponent. The marriage has not been accepted by respondent No.5, therefore, criminal proceedings have been initiated vide Case Crime No.84 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali City, district Hardoi. It has also been pointed out that the medical age of the petitioner has been found to be 18 years (Annexure-2).In the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it has been made evident that the petitioner had not been kidnapped (Annexure-4). 3.Issue notice to serve respondent No.5, through Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali City, district Hardoi, returnable on 25.4.2016. 4.Respondent No.4 is directed to produce the petitioner in Court, on the next date of listing. 5.The investigating officer of Case Crime No.84 (supra) is directed to file his affidavit. 6. List on 25.4.2016". 3. Sri Sanandan Kumar Mishra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.5. His Power of Attorney is taken on record. 4. Short Affidavit has been filed on behalf of State in Court, which is taken on record. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State/Prosecution it has been stated that in the course of investigation of Crime No. 84 of 2016 (supra), the petitioner/detenue was recovered. Medical age of the detenue has been found to be 18 years (Annexure-C.A.-3). As per High School mark-sheet, date of birth of the detenue is 12.7.1998. At this point in time, therefore, the age of the detenue as per the testimonial would be three months short of 18 years of age. 5. Medical age of the detenue has been found to be 18 years (Annexure-C.A.-3). As per High School mark-sheet, date of birth of the detenue is 12.7.1998. At this point in time, therefore, the age of the detenue as per the testimonial would be three months short of 18 years of age. 5. In the statement of the petitioner/detenue recorded under Sections 164 CrPC in pursuance to investigation, the prosecution case has not been supported, rather it has been stated that the petitioner/detenue had not been kidnapped. The petitioner/detenue got married to the deponent of her free will and had physical relations with him. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 states that the deponent has been shown as in jail in the impugned order. Under the circumstances the deponent could not have signed the petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out that the deponent is absconding. 8. This Court is considering the right vested in the petitioner/detenue under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is not required to go into the nitty gritty of location of the deponent. 9. In deference to order of the Court the detenue has been produced in Court. The detenue has again given a clear statement that she does not want to go in the company of her father for the reason that she had been tormented to the extent that she was shot at and injured. 10. On questioning the detenue, we find that detenue is mature enough to take a decision in regard to her future. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have not been able to dispute that the case 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. 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. 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. 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 majority/ age 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." 12. Considering the facts and circumstances above noted viz the petitioner/detenue in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been supported the prosecution case; medical age of the petitioner/detenue has been found to be 18 years; the petitioner/detenue in Court has made it clear that she does not want to go in the company of her father, we find that the liberty of the detenue has been curtailed without any legal cause. 13. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 13. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Respondent No. 4 is hereby directed to release the petitioner/detenue forthwith and allow her to live as per her own wish. 14. Let a copy of this order be released under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court.