HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.290/2025 Smt. Babita W/o Shri Mukesh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village- Poora Ki Dhani, Sadar Jhunjhunu, District- Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficing Unit, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Arun Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG.

Mr.Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Dy. GA.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

24/09/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J :-

This petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus is filed seeking directions to produce the brother of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘corpus’).

2. The facts are that the corpus is Constable in CRPF and on 02^nd March, 2025 proceeded on leave to his native place. The corpus got extended the medical leave and on 09.04.2025 left his native place for joining the duties at Greater Noida (U.P.). The corpus failed to join the duties. A Missing Person Report (MPR) was submitted on 11.04.2025 by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the corpus is missing and no effective steps are being taken on the MPR dated 11.04.2025.

4. The status report dated 23.09.2025 filed by learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General is taken on record.

5. As per the status report filed, the CRPF Authorities have declared the corpus as absconder and arrest warrants have been issued.

6. Learned GA-cum-AAG contends that the corpus is wanted by the CRPF authorities and police is also making efforts in this regard. It is stated in the status report that the corpus was located moving around freely at Metro Station Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi and thereafter at Tirupati.

7. From the status report, pleadings in petition and submissions made, it is forthcoming that there is no illegal detention of the corpus.

8. A legal issue arises as to whether a petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus lies where there is no illegal detention, and sole purpose is to seek supervision of the investigation of an MPR.

9. The Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 674 held that the writ in nature of Habeas Corpus can be issued where there is a prima facie case of illegal detention, whether by the State or by a private party. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted:-

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 doub 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 “We command you that you have in the King's Be Division of our High Court of Justice this our writ, the body of A.B. being taken and detained under your custody — together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained — to undergo and receive all and sing things as our court shall then and there consider of concerning him in this behalf”. The italicized words show that the writ is primarily designed to give a person restrained of his liberty a speedy and effective remedy for having the determined and if the detention is found to be unlawful, having himself discharged and freed from such restraint. The most characteristic element of the