AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPHC No.6 of 2024  Khilendra Chauhan, S/o Ranjeet Bhai Chauhan, Aged About 54 Years, Permanent R/o Village Mudipara, P.S. Somni, Distt.

Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home,department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

2. The Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh , Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.)

3. Incharge Of Station House, Police Station - City Kotwali, Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh (C.G.)

4. Priyanka Chauhan, W/o Khilendra Chauhan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Mudipara, P.S. Somni, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Present R/o Vikash Nagar, Gali No.03, Ward No.40, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh (C.G.)

---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. P. K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State Mr. R. S. Marhas, Addl. AG Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

03 .05.2024

1. Heard Mr. P. K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

R. S. Marhas, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State.

2. The present writ petition (habeas corpus) has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record which relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, command and direct therein to the respondent authorities, to produce Smt. Priyanka Chauhan, respondent no. 4, before this Hon'ble High Court, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.4 Priyanka Chouhan and their marriage was solemnized way back in the year 1999. On 08.08.2023, the petitioner lodged a missing report to the Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh alleging that his wife respondent No.4 is missing from Raigarh since 06.04.2023, upon which Missing Report No.63/2023 was registered and thereafter he also filed complaint before the SP, Raigarh, but the wife of the petitioner could not be traced. Hence, this petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 is the wife of the petitioner having the two children and she is missing from Raigarh since 06.04.2023, which is the matrimonial place of the respondent No.4. The petitioner has also lodged missing report of his wife, but despite missing report being lodged by him, the concerned respondent authorities are not properly inquiring the matter and till date respondent No.4 has not been found. The action of the respondent authorities is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. Therefore, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to produce the respondent No.4.

5. Learned State counsel submits that the last mobile location of the respondent No.4 was traced at Udaypur, Rajasthan, as such the best possible efforts are being made to search the respondent No.4.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus is an effective means of immediate release from the unlawful detention, whether in prison or in private custody. Physical confinement is not necessary to constitute detention. Control and custody are sufficient. For issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention of the subject.

8. While dealing with a petition of habeas corpus, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and others [(1973) 2 SCC 674] traced the history, nature and scope of the writ of habeas corpus. It has been held by Their Lordships that