Takur Balaji vs State of Telangana

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J

The present petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the petitioner's son, Takur Kiran Singh, age 27 years, resident of H.No.24-245/5-7, Ashok Road, Pochamma Temple, Vasudev Colony, Mancherial Town, Mancherial District.

It is alleged in the affidavit that Takur Kiran Singh, age 27, is working in Sri Lakshminarayana Jewellery Shop, Mancherial. Two months ago, petitioner's son and his wife were quarrelling with each other, thereby the wife of Takur Kiran Singh left the house and petitioner's son never returned home. Petitioner has enquired with the owner of the shop about his son, then he came to know that his son went to Chennai to give cash. On 18.10.2024, when the petitioner was in the hospital due to ill health, the owner of the shop has called him and informed that his son (Takur Kiran Singh) is not lifting his mobile and thereby the petitioner gave a report before respondent No.4 as man-missing. FIR is registered on 19.10.2024. Respondent No.4, (SHO, Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam), did not conduct investigation in the crime and they have not taken any steps to crack down petitioner’s son. It is clear that his son was sent by the owner of the shop with 40 lakhs and anticipating that his son was kidnapped by other persons, not detained by his wife's family.

Learned Special Government Pleader has filed written instructions and submits that on 19.10.2024 at about 12:30 hours petitioner came to Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam and lodged a petition stating that his son (Takur Kiran Singh, age 27 years) has been working in Sri Laxminarayana Jewellery shop Mancherial. For the past 70 days, his son used to quarrel with his wife Smt. Takur Setendriya Rani, on that his daughter-in-law went to her parents house, since then his son was mentally depressed and he neither went to the shop nor visited the house. On 17.10.2024, Jewellery shop owner’s son informed that petitioner’s son was sent to Chennai on duty. Basing on the report of the petitioner, SI of police registered a case in Crime No. 675/2024 as man-missing on 19.10.2024. SI of police has examined witnesses and has also prepared a lookout notice, sent to the Office of Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, along with radio message through TSPMS. SI of police deputed men on id duty in order to trace out the missing person and also prepared a requisition and forward the same to the Commissioner of Police with a request to furnish the call details.

It is further submitted that SI of police has obtained the Bank Statement from the Bank Manager of HDFC bank, Union Bank of India, State Bank of India, ICICI Bank and Bank of Baroda, verified the details and found that the missing person made transactions of Rs.5,000/- to his sister Ms.Bhavani’s account of State Bank of India on 18.10.2024. While the investigation is in progress, the owner of Sri Laxminarayana Jewellery shop (Sri Devarakonda Narasimha Chary) lodged a complaint with respondent No.4 on 29.10.2024 that on 17.10.2024 at about 16:00 hours he has handed over 47 lakhs to Kiran Singh Takur for business purpose to go to Chennai and the complainant’s son by name Sandeep has boarded Kiran Singh Takur in Navajeevan Express Train. Kiran Singh Takur was in contact with Narasimha Chary till 14:00 hours and thereafter he switched off his mobile phone. Basing on the complaint of Sri Devarakonda Narasimha Chary, case in Crime No.691/2024 is registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, dated 29.10.2024 as man-missing.

Learned Special Government Pleader submits that Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable of missing persons, in support of his contention he relied on a decision in the case of Nimananda Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and others 2023 SCC online Orissa 5628.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed additional affidavit on 10.03.2025 without the leave of the Court and the same was declined vide order dated 10.03.2025. Petitioner’s counsel was permitted to rely on one decision which shall be filed in the Registry by 11.03.2025 with an advance copy to the learned Special Government Pleader, but he failed to do so.

The Court has to be satisfied about the factum of illegal detention before it proceeds to entertain a petition seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner has not produced any material to show that his son has been detained illegally by anyone.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj  (2007) 10 SCC 190, was of the opinion that petitioner must show prima facie case of unlawful detention before it

urges the Court to issue the prerogative Writ of Habeas Corpus and held as follows:

“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 Sulochana Bai v. State of M.P. (2008) 2 MPHT 233, Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows:

“We have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight that the writ of habeas corpus can only be issued when there is assertion of wrongful confinement. In the present case, what has been asserted in the writ petition is that her father-in-law has been missing for last four years and a missing report has been lodged at the police station. What action should have been taken by the police that cannot be the matter of habeas corpus because there is no allegation whatsoever that there has been wrongful confinement by the police or any private person. In the result, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.”

In Selvaraj v. State  (2018) 3 Mad LJ (Cri) 712, Division Bench of Madras High Court held as follows:

The constitutional Courts across the country predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a ground of “illegal detention” and a strong suspicion about any such “illegal detention” is a condition precedent for moving a Habeas Corpus petition and the Constitutional Courts shall be restrained in entertaining such Habeas Corpus petition, where there is no allegation of “illegal detention” or suspicion about any such “illegal detention”. Man/Women missing cases cannot be brought under the provision of the Habeas Corpus petition. Man/Women missing cases are to be registered under the regular provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the Police officials concerned are bound to investigate the same in the manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such cases are to be dealt as regular cases by the competent Court of Law and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts cannot be invoked for the purpose of dealing with such Man/Women Missing cases.”

In Jaymati Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh 2022 SCC online Chandigarh 737, Division Bench of Chandigarh High Court held as follows:

“14. Thus, the constitutional Courts across the country predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a ground of “illegal detention” and a strong suspicion about any such “illegal detention” is a condition precedent for moving a Habeas Corpus petition and the Constitutional Courts shall not entertain a Habeas Corpus petition, where there is no allegation of “illegal detention” or suspicion about any such “illegal detention”. Cases of missing persons cannot be brought under the provision of the Habeas Corpus petition. Cases of missing persons are to be registered under the regular provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the Police officials concerned are bound to investigate the same in the manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such cases are to be dealt as regular cases by the competent Court of Law and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts cannot be invoked for the purpose of dealing with such cases of missing persons.

It is seen in the instant case that the petitioner has not made any averment in the entire writ petition that her daughter Juhi Sahu has been illegally detained either by the official respondents or by the respondent No.7. Averment made in the writ petition, as a whole, do not disclose the illegal detention of Juhi Sahu by private or official respondents. The petitioner only apprehends that the respondent No.7 and his family members might have murdered Juhi Sahu. As such, unlawful detention of the petitioner's daughter, either by private person or custody/control/detention by the respondents is not pleaded, established or urged before this Court, only apprehension of alleged criminal act by respondent No. 7 and his family members has been expressed. As already observed in the above-stated paragraphs, a writ of habeas corpus is not to be issued as a matter of course and clear grounds must be made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. In the instant case, the petitioner has miserably failed to plead and establish the necessary ingredients for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and as such, the extraordinary writ cannot be issued at the instance of the petitioner for production of a missing person, as it is the case of the petitioner herself that her daughter is missing since 10-2-2019.”

In Nimananda Biswal (supra), Division Bench of Orissa High Court has held as follows:

“10. Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in a casual and routine manner. Though it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and power can be exercised in clear case. Illegal confinement is a pre-condition to issue a writ of habeas corpus. It cannot be issued in respect of any and every missing person more so when no named person is alleged to be responsible for the ‘illegal detention’ of the person for whose production before the Court, a writ is to be issued. On the basis of a habeas corpus petition, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised for tracing a missing person engaging an investigating agency empowered to investigate a case under Cr. P.C.

In this case, the petitioner has not established a prima facie case of ‘unlawful detention’ of his daughter by any particular person, rather it is submitted on his behalf that his daughter has been missing. Therefore, we are of the considered view that a petition seeking the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained to trace out a missing person and for such purpose, the petitioner can pursue other effective remedy.”

The material goes to show that Takur Kiran Singh (missing person) stayed at Span Guest House in Kulandai Street, Parktown, Chennai 600003 on 18.10.2024 at 06.20 AM and checked out from the guest house at 16:30 hours on the same day which is captured in the CCTV footage of that hotel. The detenu has made financial transactions of Rs.74,000/- on 18.10.2024, the crime team has collected the information from e-capture, the alleged detenu has given Rs.74,00,000/- cash to E.Vinay Kumar of Chennai and requested him to deposit the said amount in his Bank account vide No.610102010004975 of Union Bank, accordingly E.Vinay Kumar has deposited the amount in the Bank account of the missing person. The material further goes to show that Takur Tirupuvan Singh S/o Ravindar Singh, age 18 years, parcel pickup person, resident of Warangal, now at Mandamari, who is the cousin of the missing person, who had seen him last in Warangal railway station while he was going to Chennai on 05.02.2025. Respondent No.4 is investigating Crime No.675 of 2024 and Crime No.691 of 2024 and putting their best efforts to trace out the missing person by name Takur Kiran Singh, age 27 years by deploying the team.

Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of unlawful detention of his son (Takur Kiran Singh) by any particular person, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts stated supra, we are of the considered view that a petition seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be entertained to trace out a missing person for such purpose and the petitioner can pursue other effective remedies.

Accordingly, Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without cost.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.