1 2026:CGHC:25307-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 18 of 2026 Kamlesh Yadav S/o Laxman Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Ganesh Mandir Railway Hospital Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh Its Secretary Department Of Home And Police Affairs Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur P.S. And Post Rakhi District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Civil Line P.S. Civil Line District Raipur Chhattisgrh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Officer In Charge Police Station Torwa Bilaspur Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Shubham Bapaiya S/o Raju Bapaiya Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Ganesh Mandir Railway Hospital Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Shayama Ganvir W/o Ramesh Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Behind Of Kali Mandir P.S. Torwa Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.23 10:28:18 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for following relief: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents for presenting daughter of the petitioner. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may be deemed fit.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s daughter, namely Rani Yadav, went missing on 21.02.2026 at about 10:30 PM and despite extensive search efforts by the family, her whereabouts could not be ascertained, whereupon a missing person report was lodged at the concerned Police Station. It is further submitted that the petitioner repeatedly approached the police authorities and submitted representations seeking a fair and effective investigation, including examination of 3 CCTV footage, but no meaningful action has been taken. Counsel contends that the petitioner had specifically informed the police that respondent No.5 had earlier enticed and taken away the petitioner’s daughter and had also raised allegations against respondent No.6 through written complaints, yet the authorities failed to act thereon. It is argued that there exists a strong and bona fide apprehension that the corpus is under the illegal detention or influence of respondent Nos.5 and 6, thereby infringing her fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued for tracing, producing and securing the liberty of the corpus. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that upon receipt of the missing person report lodged by the petitioner, the police authorities immediately initiated inquiry and investigation in the matter. During the course of investigation, respondents No.5 and 6 were summoned and their statements were recorded. It is submitted that both respondents have categorically denied having any knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner’s daughter and have also denied that she is in their custody. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner’s daughter is a major and, therefore, unless there is material to indicate illegal detention by any person, issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would not be warranted. It is contended that the matter is presently being investigated as a missing person case in 4 accordance with law. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the record, it is apparent that a missing person report regarding the petitioner’s daughter has already been lodged before the concerned police authorities and investigation pursuant thereto has been undertaken. It is also not in dispute that respondents No.5 and 6 have been examined by the investigating agency and, in their statements, they have denied that the petitioner’s daughter is in their custody. Apart from the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, no material has been placed before this Court to prima facie establish that the petitioner’s daughter is under the illegal detention of respondents No.5 and 6 or any other person. 7. The writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only when there exists a prima facie case of unlawful or illegal detention. In the facts of the present case, since the matter is already under investigation pursuant to the missing person report and no material indicating illegal confinement has been brought on record, no case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is made out. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such other remedies as may be available under law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet