Writ of habeas corpus is paramount for ensuring justice when an alleged detenue's whereabouts are unknown.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The 1^st petitioner alleges that her husband (who will hereinafter be referred to as the “alleged detenue”) is missing without a trace, imputing that the 6^th respondent has a role in this; and requests this Court to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus against the respondents to produce him and set him at liberty.

2. We considered this matter on 18.11.2025; and our observations are self-speaking and hence extracted below:

“The learned Government Pleader submits that the “alleged detenue” is involved in at least four Crimes and that the Police had justified reason to believe that he is absconding and hiding.

2. Sri.Peter Jose Christo, appearing for respondent No.6, submits that the allegations against his client are so egregious and reckless, that she has been irreparably prejudiced. He pointed out that, even according to the Police - as has now been submitted by the learned Government Pleader - it is the “alleged detenue”, who was the Secretary in charge of the Bank, who had committed gross misappropriation, and for which now his client is being tried to be made a scapegoat by the petitioners.

3. Prima facie, there is force in what Sri.Peter Jose Christo says because, the Police have now reported to us, through the learned Government Pleader, that the “alleged detenue” is facing four Crimes and that he has not appeared for investigation even in one.

4. Be that as it may, either of the ways of looking at it: namely, that the “alleged detenue” is under detention, or that he is absconding to evade process of law, he has to be found out and brought to justice.

5. In such perspective, we direct the 2^nd respondent - State Police Chief, to constitute an appropriate team with competence and apposite power, to ensure that the “alleged detenue” is traced out and produced before us, or before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

6. The report in this regard shall be made available to us on or before 08.01.2026.

7. Since, prima facie, we find the submissions of Sri.Peter Jose Christo to be apposite, we discharge respondent No.6 from any further cause to answer, unless she is called upon to do so by us in future.

List, therefore, on 12.01.2026.”

3. Thereafter, on 12.01.2026, we passed the second order which is as under:

“Read order dated 18.11.2025.

The learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Nath, has handed over across the Bar the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 05.12.2025, informing that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been constituted, headed by Sri.Biju V. Nair, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, to be under the direct supervision of Sri.Mohanachandran IPS, District Police Chief, Alappuzha.

Obviously, we will have to give the SIT some time to deliver results.

We, therefore, adjourn this matter for the first report of the SIT on 27.01.2026.

Needless to say, if, in the meanwhile, the ‘alleged detenue’ is traced, the learned Government Pleader is given liberty to mention the matter and have it listed accordingly.”

4. The learned Government Pleader –

Sri.B.S.Syamanthak, submits that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is rigorously following up the matter and is hopeful of a breakthrough, though without much of a lead now. He explained that the “alleged detenue” appears to be keeping away from law voluntarily because, of the crimes that have been registered against him; but that the Police are not banking on this as the only possibility, investigating every other, including that he may be genuinely missing.

5. It is thus obvious that there is no purpose in this Writ Petition being kept pending because, unless the “alleged detenue” is traced out and produced, we cannot pass any further orders.

6. We, therefore, close this Writ Petition, confirming the afore extracted orders; but with a direction to the 4^th re