( 1. ) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce her father-in-law, Kanchhedi Lal.

( 2. ) SHORN of unnecessary details the requisite facts are that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the missing person, Kanchhedi Lal, who was working in khamariya Factory. On 26-6-2003 said Kanchhedi Lal left his home for the place of work but thereafter he did not return and, therefore, an information in this regard was given at the Police Station, Ranjhi. On the aforesaid basis, a case being Case No. 50/03 was registered and investigation was commenced. But kanchhedi Lal has not yet been traced out. Police Station, Ranjhi vide letter dated 18-8-2004 (Annexure-P-1) informed that the search in respect of said kanchhedi Lal is in progress but so far no positive information has been received in that regard. It is pleaded that Pramod Burman, the husband of the petitioner, and son of the missing person, is suffering from mental disease. It is also putforth that notice in respect of aforesaid missing person was also published in the newspaper but no fruitful result has ensued. It is asserted that the petitioner is a poor labourer and is required to look after her mentally retarded husband and her children. Despite her visit to the Police Station and Khamariya Factory with great difficulties, nothing has been done in that regard. It is asseverated that the wife of the missing person and the mother-in-law of the petitioner has already died. It is urged that the investigating agency is not taking action and further not supplying any information on one pretext or the other.

( 3. ) MR. Ashok Agrawal, learned Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection that the writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable as there is no allegation that the father-in-law of the petitioner has been detained in any wrongful confinement by any one.

( 4. ) THE writ of habeas corpus as had been called by Blackstone "the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement". The Apex Court in the case of Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate, AIR 1973 SC 2684 traced the immemorial antiquity of the writ and referred to number of English decisions and opined that there can be no doubt that in enacting Article 32 (2) the Constitution makers meant to give to person illegally restrained of his liberty the same kind of remedy, fashioned and developed over the years, which his counterpart enjoyed in England and United States. Their Lordships further proceeded to state that while dealing with an application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 the supreme Court may not require the body of the person detained to be brought before the Court. The production of the body of the person detained is not essential to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to deal with the application. Their Lordships expressed if the detention is found to be unlawful, an order to release him is to be passed forthwith.

( 5. ) IN Prem Shanker Shukla vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535 the Apex Court has ruled thus :-

"the raw history of human bondage and the roots of the habeas-corpus writ enlighten the wise exercise of constitutional power in enlarging the person of men in unlawful detention. No longer is this liberating writ trammelled by the traditional limits of English vintage; for, our founding fathers exceeded the inspiration of the prerogative writs by phrasing the power in larger diction. That is why, in India, as in the similar jurisdiction in America, the broader horizons of habeas corpus spread out, beyond the orbit of release from illegal custody, into every trauma and torture on persons in legal custody, if the cruelty is contrary to law, degrades human dignity of defiles his personhood to a degree that violates Articles 21, 14 and 19 enlivened by the preamble. "

( 6. ) IN Additional Secretary to the Government of India vs. Alka Subhash gadia, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 496 it has been held t