Sarojani Karke vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

In this petition for habeas corpus, the petitioner states that her daughter Sonam was sleeping with her on 05.03.2022. When the petitioner woke up at 12:00 in the night, she found that Sonam was not in the house. Accordingly, she filed a complaint before the respondent No. 3 on 08.03.2022 on the basis of which FIR No. 0124/2022 was registered at Police Station, Sakri, District Bilaspur. In a representation dated 23.05.2022, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, the petitioner had stated that Sonam had left the house without informing her.

It appears that on 05.03.2022, the daughter of the petitioner was a minor, aged about 16 years and 11 months.

In the matter of Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj and another, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 190, while explaining the nature of writ of habeas corpus, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that though it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course and the applicant must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention. Paragraph 7 of the decision states as under:

“7. Article 21 of the Constitution having declared that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law, a machinery was definitely needed to examine the question of illegal detention with utmost promptitude. The writ of habeas corpus is a device of this nature. Blackstone called it "the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement". The writ has been described as a writ of right which is grantable ex debito justitiae. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The applicant must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, he shows such a cause and the return is not good and sufficient, he is entitled to this writ as of right.”

In the writ petition, the petitioner has not made any averment that her daughter had been illegally detained. In the FIR also, the petitioner did not implicate any person. However, in the letter dated 23.05.2022, she has indicated that she has some doubt on one Parmeshwar Bareth, son of Dhannu Bareth, resident of village Jagatakapa, District Mungeli.

In view of the above factual matrix, we are not inclined to entertain this habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, while disposing of the same, we reserve liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in case the police authorities are not proceeding with the case diligently.