##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8649

1 WP-47706-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 47706 of 2025

KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Government Advocate for the

respondent/State.

ORDER

Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vinay Saraf

1. The instant habeas corpus petition is preferred by petitioner for

production of his brother Sunil Kumar Sharma who left the company of

petitioner and his family members by eloping with respondent no.6 in the

year 2002.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that brother of the

petitioner Sunil Kumar Sharma is in illegal custody and on 16.12.2024 a

representation was submitted before the Inspector General of Police, Bhopal

mentioning that a missing person report was lodged by father of the

petitioner at Police Station- Kotwali, District Hoshangabad on 30.12.2002

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PREETI TIWARI

Signing time: 09-02-2026

17:10:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8649

2 WP-47706-2025

and since then the brother of the petitioner has not been traced. He demanded

to communicate the outcome of missing person report no. 60/2002 dated

30.12.2002.

3. From the record, it appears that the brother of the petitioner has

left the house on 16.12.2002 and since then there is no information available

regarding the corpus. The petitioner lodged fresh missing person report

no.28/2025 at Police Station- Kotwali, District Hoshangabad by stating that

his brother has left the home on 18.12.2002 stating that he is going to

Shirdi. After the year 2002, for the first time, petitioner lodged the report in

the month of December, 2024. During the period of 22 years, nothing has

been heard in respect of corpus, Sunil Kumar Sharma.

4. The habeas corpus petition is maintainable only in case the corpus

is in wrongful confinement or illegal custody of someone else. Upon the

allegation that the brother of the petitioner left the house by eloping with

respondent no.6 in the year 2002, no new cause of action arises for filing

habeas corpus petition.

5. State has also filed the status report which states that since 2002,

nothing has been heard about the corpus even the search was carried out at

Shirdi.

6. It is apparent that the corpus is not in wrongful confinement and

he has gone on his own. Habeas corpus petition is maintainable only in case

the corpus is wrongfully confined by any authority or private persons. Writ

of habeas corpus is an effective means of immediate release from an

unlawful detention. Physical confinement is not necessary to constitute

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PREETI TIWARI

Signing time: 09-02-2026

17:10:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8649

3 WP-47706-2025

detention, however control or custody are sufficient for issuance of writ of

Habeas Corpus. Petitioner failed to show prima facie case of unlawful

detention of corpus. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court considered

the scope of writ of habeas corpus in the matter of Kanu Sanyal Vs. District

Magistrate, Darjeeling and Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 674 and in paragraph 4 has

held as under:

"4. ..... the writ of habeas corpus that it is essentially a procedural

writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive

law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is

illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no doubt, a

command addressed to a person who is alleged to have another

person unlawfully in his custody requiring him to bring the body

of such person before the Court, but the production of the body of

the person detained is directed in order that the circumstances of

his detention may be inquired into, or to put it differently, “in

order that appropriate judgment be rendered on judicial enquiry

into the alleged unlawful restraint”. The form of the writ

employed is