Habeas Corpus In Case of Mission Person Cannot Be Invoked In Routine Manner To Know Status Of Investigation: Rajasthan High Court
The High Court observed that the unlawful detention is the sine qua non for issuance of writ of habeas corpus.
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the writ jurisdiction (Habeas Corpus) in the case of a missing person cannot be invoked as a matter of routine to know the status of the investigation.
The Court also held that a prima facie case of illegal detention has to be made out for invoking the writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed, “It is a trite law that in ordinary course the high court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction, if there is an alternative remedy available. The writ jurisdiction in the case of a missing person cannot be invoked as a matter of routine to know the status of the investigation or on being dissatisfied with the manner of investigation.”
Advocate Arun Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Rajesh Choudhary represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
A writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus was filed by the Petitioner to produce his brother. The Petitioner's brother was a Constable in CRPF and went missing in April, 2025.
The CRPF informed the Court that the CRPF Authorities have declared the Petitioner's brother as absconder and arrest warrants were issued. It was also contended that the Petitioner’s brother was not illegally detained.
Court’s Observation
The question before the Court was whether a petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus lies where there was no illegal detention, and sole purpose was to seek supervision of the investigation of a Missing Person Report (MPR).
The High Court noted that the unlawful detention is the sine qua non for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. However, in the case in hand, there was no pleading or allegation of an illegal detention of the Petitioner’s brother, rather it was the case where the grievance was against the manner of investigation of MPR.
The Court observed, “The writ of Habeas Corpus is to secure release of person illegally detained either by State or a private individual. A prima facie case of illegal detention has to be made out for invoking the writ of Habeas Corpus. The scope of Habeas Corpus has been enlarged with time, but there cannot be straitjacket formula for interference in writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus…The writ jurisdiction in the case of a missing person cannot be invoked as a matter of routine to know the status of the investigation or on being dissatisfied with the manner of investigation.”
The High Court also emphasised that the criminal procedure law provides remedies for supervision of investigation and if required, for issuance of direction for effective investigation and such matters are to be dealt with by the competent court of law.
Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Babita V. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:39433-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Arun Sharma
Respondents: Advocates Rajesh Choudhary and Manvendra Singh Shekhawat
Click here to read/download Judgment