THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22661 OF 2025 Sri B V S S Balakrishna Ranjit, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The petitioner claims to be the mother of the alleged detenu.

2. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the alleged detenu remains untraced since 17.09.2016. The petitioner filed a complaint on 25.09.2016 before the Station House Officer, Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad, pursuant to which FIR.No.298/2016 under ‘Head Man Missing’ was registered.

3. The Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed on

30.07.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there were disputes between the alleged detenu and the respondent No.6 (wife of the alleged detenu), and that there is no evidence of the alleged detenu’s whereabouts for approximately nine years, i.e., from 17.09.2016. Counsel further submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have failed in their duty to trace the alleged detenu.

5. The Court is informed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 5 that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asif Nagar Division, Hyderabad, permitted to close the complaint referring to it as ‘undetected’ on 30.05.2017.

6. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.

7. It is well settled that the Writ Petition for issuance of a Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy in which a Writ Court exercises its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in fit cases. Fit cases would cover instances where a petitioner approaches the Court complaining of an illegal detention or detention that is contrary to law. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be filed for tracing missing persons. This has been settled in several cases, including an order by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rasamalla Divyarani v. The State of Telangana and Ors1.

8. The Co-ordinate Bench relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court to arrive at the conclusion that illegal confinement is a pre-condition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and that the said Writ cannot be issued for tracing out a missing person. The same view was taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Nimananda Biswal v. State of Odisha and Others²

9. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has not been able to show any steps taken against the closure of the complaint on 30.05.2017. As stated above, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary powers of this Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to trace the alleged detenu who has been missing for approximately nine years.

10. W.P.No.22661 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

2023 (6) ALT 571

2023 SCC OnLine Ori 5628

11. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse under the available legal remedies. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 11.08.2025

NDS