[2025:RJ-JP:5904-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 46/2025 Shankar Son Of Babulal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Near Anaj Mandi, Dhadiya Joda, Bansur, Presently Near Putli Puliya, Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Kotputli Behror. 4. SHO Police Station Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror. 5. Bablu Son Of Bhavraram Banjara, Resident Of Sector-18, Jodhpur (Raj.) 6. Subhash Son Of Shri Bhavraram, Resident Of Gopalpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotpulit-Behror, Presently Resident Of Barwa Road, Ghani Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.) 7. Prakash Son Of Bhavraram, Resident Of Gopalpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotpulit-Behror, Presently Resident Of Barwa Road, Ghani Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narpat Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, G.A.cum AAG with Mr. Sudesh Saini, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 10/02/2025 PER PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by father of the corpus namely [2025:RJ-JP:5904-DB] (2 of 4) [HC-46/2025] Pooja (minor) seeking issuance of writ/order or direction for the following principal reliefs: 1. By issue an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to produce Pooja D/o Shankar, aged about 17 years (minor) before this Hon’ble Court. 2. By issue an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly direct the respondents No. 5 to 7 release the daughter of petitioner detenue namely Pooja D/o Shankar, aged about 17 years (minor). 2. The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner submitted a report before Police Station Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror that on 2.1.2025 all the family along with corpus Pooja were sleeping after taking meal, at about 2 o’ clock in midnight, when the petitioner woke up, he did not find his daughter in the Jhuggi and thereafter in the morning also he did not find her, on the basis of which the concerning Police Station lodged FIR No. 6/2025 dated 03.01.2025 for the offence under Section 137 (2) of B.N.S. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that corpus Pooja is minor and her date of birth is 1.1.2008 and she has been missing since 3.1.2025 and the petitioner has apprehension that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have illegally detained her minor daughter. 4. Per contra, learned G.A. cum AAG on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that investigation with regard to the alleged FIR is in progress for search of missing girl. He further [2025:RJ-JP:5904-DB] (3 of 4) [HC-46/2025] submits that when a Missing Report has been lodged, the petition of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. 5. Heard the rival contentions of both the counsels and scanned the matter carefully. 6. It is not disputed that in the First Information Report lodged by the father of the detenue, registered as FIR No. 6/2025 for the offence under Section 137 (2) of B.N.S. no allegation of illegal detention of the detenue by respondents No. 5 to 7 has been made, in simple words, no accusation against respondents No. 5 to 7 have been levelled by the father of the detenue that the respondents No. 5 to 7 have kidnapped the detenue Pooja. 7. In the case of Union of India Vs. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj and another reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 190, Hon'ble 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 his unlawful detention. Paragraph 7 of the judgement is reproduced 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." 8. The Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in a routine and casual manner. The writ of Habeas Corpus is [2025:RJ-JP:5904-DB] (4 of 4) [HC-46/2025] festinum remedium and unless there is a clear case established by the petitioner prima facie to show that the detenue is in illegal confinement no writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued. A Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in respect of any and every missing person more so when no named person is alleged to be responsible in the F.I.R. for the illegal detention of the person for whose production a writ is to be issued. 9. It will be appropriate to mention that nearly after one month of lodging the FIR, for the first time, it has been stated by the father of the detenue Pooja that respondent Nos.5 to 7 have illegally detained the detenue Pooja which reflects the clear case of improvement so that the case of Habeas Corpus may be made. 10. Besides above, as per pleading of the petitioner an application to recover the detenue Pooja is also pending before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli. 11. Thus, in view of the above, writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in the present case. Moreso, when no named person is alleged to be responsible in the FIR for illegal detention of the detenue Pooja and petitioner is availing the efficacious remedy to issue search warrant before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotputli. 12. Hence, this petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, this Court directs the respondents No. 1 to 4 to bring the investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged by the petitioner/father of corpus Pooja to its logical end as expeditiously as possible. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77