The Bombay High Court, sitting as a single judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar, has held that a Magistrate is competent to invoke the search provisions contained in Section 100 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for the purpose of locating and restoring a child who has been forcibly removed from the mother's custody. The judgment arose from a criminal application filed by the mother challenging an order of the Sessions Court in Malegaon, Nashik, which had set aside two earlier directions passed by the Magistrate Court.

According to the record presented before the High Court, the Magistrate Court, on 28 November 2025, directed a thorough search of the father's residence after noting that the three‑year‑old child, who had been in the mother's custody, was taken away by the father at gunpoint. The Magistrate further ordered, on 15 December 2025, that the father hand over the child's custody to the mother. The father, aggrieved by these directions, approached the Sessions Court, which, on 13 January 2026, quashed both the Magistrate's orders and directed the mother to surrender the child's custody to the father.

Justice Jamdar observed that the Sessions Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the crucial factual aspect that the child had been taken away by the father showing a revolver and was subsequently confined at another location. The High Court judge noted that the record clearly shows the husband/father forcefully took away the child from the mother's custody by displaying the revolver and confining him elsewhere. In light of these facts, the Magistrate's exercise of power under Section 100 of the BNSS was deemed appropriate and lawful.

The judge further stated that the Sessions Court's order of 13 January 2026, which ignored the aforementioned circumstances, was perverse and illegal. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the Sessions Court's order, restoring the Magistrate's directions for a search of the father's house and the subsequent restoration of custody to the mother.

Justice Jamdar also noted that another single‑judge of the Bombay High Court had already stayed the impugned Sessions Court order in February 2026. As a result of that stay, the child has continued to remain in the mother's custody pending the final determination of the matter.

During the proceedings, the mother was represented by Advocates Aniket Vagal, Juhi Kadu and Savvy Kolhekar. The father's case was presented by Advocates Mahendra Sandhyanshiv and Vikas Mourya. The Additional Public Prosecutor, SM Yadav, appeared on behalf of the State.

The matter is cited as SSNA vs SAAR (Criminal Application 213 of 2026) and the Bombay High Court's judgment is reported as 2026 Jurisight.in

The decision clarifies the scope of magisterial authority under the newly enacted BNSS, affirming that a Magistrate may issue search warrants to locate a minor child when there is credible evidence of forcible removal from lawful custody. It underscores that appellate courts must not overturn such magisterial orders without giving due consideration to the factual matrix, particularly where allegations of force or intimidation are involved. The ruling reinforces the protective intent of the BNSS provisions in cases involving child welfare and custodial disputes.