1 2025:CGHC:56742-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 21 of 2025 Mukesh Kumar Thakur S/o Nandkeshwar Thakur Aged About 38 Years R/o Quarter No. 78-80/3/2 A Balconagar, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through It's Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 3. Superintendent of Police Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4. Station House Officer Through Police Station Balconagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5. Sudama Sharma S/o Late Rampati Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o Ramnagar, P.S. Bairmu, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 6. Sushil Kumar S/o Late Rampati Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o Ramnagar, P.S. Bairmu, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 7. Neeraj Kumar Pappu S/o Late Sukhdev Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Ramnagar, P.S. Bairmu, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.21 16:24:48 +0530 2 8. Vivek Kumar S/o Sudama Sharma Aged About 21 Years R/o Ramnagar, P.S. Bairmu, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 9. Sandip Sharma @ Monu S/o Sudama Sharma Aged About 25 Years R/o Ramnagar, P.S. Bairmu, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 10. Balram Thakur S/o Late Bhichhan Thakur Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Beni, P.S. Mali, District Aurangabad Bihar ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow habeas corpus writ petition, in the interest of justice. 3 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of habeas corpus with direction to respondents No. 5 to 8 & 10 to release wife Smt. Indu Thakur, son Abhimanyu Thakur, daughter Ku. Manya Thakur from their custody and to give possession in the custody of the petitioner within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is related to respondents No. 5 to 8 and 10 through matrimonial ties. It is alleged that these respondents assaulted the petitioner's father, Nandkeshwar Thakur, with lathi, danda and iron rod, causing him grievous injuries. On the basis of this incident, FIR No. 101/2018 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 294, 506 Part-II and 307/149 of the IPC. After trial, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), by judgment dated 22.09.2025, convicted respondents No. 5 to 8 and 10 for offences under Sections 325 and 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 4. Learned counsel further submits that after their conviction, respondents No. 5 to 8 and 10 allegedly exerted pressure on the petitioner to enter into a compromise and withdraw the criminal case. As the petitioner refused to do so, on the night of 07.11.2025, while the 4 petitioner was on official duty, his wife Smt. Indu Thakur, aged about 28 years, his son Abhimanyu Thakur, aged about 5 years, and his daughter Ku. Manya Thakur, aged about 4 years, went missing from their residence, and on the next morning, i.e., 08.11.2025 at around 6:00 a.m. The petitioner suspects that respondents No. 5 to 8 and 10 have taken away his family members and are keeping them in their unlawful custody. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several complaints were made before the respondent authorities seeking immediate steps for tracing and releasing his wife and children. The concerned police station issued a missing persons notice on 08.11.2025. However, according to the petitioner, no effective action was taken by the authorities, and despite repeated requests, his wife and children were not produced before any authority, compelling him to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that upon receipt of the missing report, the police initiated inquiry and traced the petitioner's wife. During the inquiry, she informed the police that she is residing at her parental home along with her children of her own free will and that no force or coercion has been exerted upon her. It is submitted that though the petitioner apprehends that his in-laws have forcibly taken his wife and children due to the pendency of criminal litigation, the police investigation reveals that she has voluntarily chosen to live with her parents. It is further submitted that since the alleged missing 5 persons have been located and have expressed their independent choice regarding residence, no cause for further intervention subsists. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents placed on record. 8. The material available indicates that the police has duly acted on the missing report lodged by the petitioner and has verified the whereabouts and well-being of the petitioner's wife and children. The statement of the petitioner's wife recorded by the police clearly reflects that she is residing with her parents of her own volition and is not under any illegal restraint or detention. 9. In the absence of any material to establish that respondents No. 5 to 8 and 10 have wrongfully confined the petitioner's wife and children or that their liberty is curtailed in any manner, this Court finds no justification for issuing any direction in the nature sought by the petitioner. A writ of habeas corpus or any similar relief can be granted only when there is prima facie evidence of unlawful detention, which is completely absent in the present case. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan