Habeas Corpus Petition (CRWP 3837/2025) Infructuous as Son Found Safe with Relative, Not in Illegal Police Detention: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Habeas Corpus Plea Ends as "Missing" Son Found Safe with Uncle, Not in Police Custody

Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently disposed of a Habeas Corpus writ petition (CRWP 3837 / 2025) as infructuous, after a Warrant Officer appointed by the court confirmed that the petitioner's son, alleged to be in illegal police detention, was actually staying with a relative out of apprehension.

The Court's decision underscores the procedural efficacy of Habeas Corpus writs in swiftly ascertaining the whereabouts and status of individuals alleged to be unlawfully detained.

Background of the Petition

The petitioner, Ram Lubhaya , approached the High Court by filing a Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP 3837 / 2025) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He sought the appointment of a Warrant Officer to secure the release of his son, Hardeep Kumar , whom he alleged was in the illegal confinement of respondents No. 5 and 6 (believed to be officials of Police Post Khannighat).

The core legal issue was to determine if Hardeep Kumar was indeed being illegally detained, thereby warranting the court's intervention through a writ of Habeas Corpus.

Warrant Officer's Investigation Uncovers Facts

Following a court order, Warrant Officer Amandeep Gosain conducted an inquiry on June 28, 2024. His detailed report, submitted to the High Court, provided a clear picture of the situation:

Visit to Police Post: The Warrant Officer visited Police Post Khannighat, Police Station City Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, at approximately 9:30 PM.

Police Denial of Detention: HC Paramjit Singh , the Incharge of the Police Post, denied that Hardeep Kumar was illegally arrested or detained. He stated that Hardeep Kumar had been verbally called to the post on June 28, 2024, for questioning in connection with a robbery case but was allowed to leave immediately thereafter. No case was registered against Hardeep Kumar , nor was he required for further investigation at that post.

Search and Initial Absence : A search of the police post premises, conducted in the presence of the petitioner, did not locate Hardeep Kumar .

Hardeep Kumar Appears: Upon the Warrant Officer's request, the Incharge contacted Hardeep Kumar . Shortly thereafter, Hardeep Kumar arrived at the police post, accompanied by his uncle, Bal Kumar , and other respected village members.

Son's Account and Father's Relief

The Warrant Officer recorded statements from Hardeep Kumar and the petitioner, Ram Lubhaya :

Hardeep Kumar 's Statement: The alleged detenue, Hardeep Kumar , informed the Warrant Officer: > "...he was only verbally called by the police at Police Post Khannighat on 28.06.2024 for questioning in a case concerning robbery and after being questioned, he was relieved by the police and then he went with to his uncle Bal Kumar ’s house on the same day without telling anything to his family members and he was living there due to apprehension that he might be called again by police..."

Petitioner's Statement: The petitioner, Ram Lubhaya , stated: > "...he only came to know the fact of his son being living at his uncle’s house just now, so he is taking his son Hardeep Kumar with him to his house." He also provided a written undertaking to this effect.

The Incharge of the Police Post also confirmed that no case was registered against Hardeep Kumar at their post and he was not wanted for any investigation.

High Court's Ruling

Based on the comprehensive report submitted by the Warrant Officer, the High Court observed that the core grievance of the petition no longer survived. The judgment noted:

> "In view of the said report, the present petition has become infructuous, as the alleged detenue has been recovered and his custody has been handed over to the petitioner."

Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition (CRWP 3837 / 2025) as having been rendered infructuous.

Implications of the Judgment

This case illustrates a common scenario where Habeas Corpus petitions are filed due to miscommunication or apprehension. The swift action by the court in appointing a Warrant Officer led to the quick resolution of the matter, clarifying that there was no illegal detention. It highlights the crucial role of Warrant Officers in fact-finding missions and the ultimate aim of the Habeas Corpus writ: to ensure no individual is deprived of their liberty unlawfully. While no illegal detention was found in this instance, the process ensured accountability and transparency.