1 2026:CGHC:26240-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 19 of 2026 Smt. Sunila Bhaumik W/o Late Ajay Bhaumik Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Hafa, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. S.H.O. Police Station Sakri District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Ankush Kurre S/o Sudheram Kurre Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Hafa, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Rajgir, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.06.30 18:49:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Rajgir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 5. 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 direct the respondent authorities to produce the Miss Viliyam Bhaumik before this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to trace and recover the minor girl forthwith. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to submit a status report/case diary. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 6 Ankush Kurre to give the custody of Miss Viliyam Bhaumik to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the mother and natural guardian of Miss Viliyam Bhaumik @ Lali, a minor 3 girl born on 17.05.2008. He submits that the petitioner earns her livelihood by running a small kirana (grocery) shop and, after the demise of her husband, Late Ajay Bhaumik, she is the sole breadwinner and is entirely responsible for maintaining her family. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the night of 22.04.2026, after having dinner, the petitioner and her family members retired to sleep at their residence. During the night, the petitioner's minor daughter, Miss Viliyam Bhaumik @ Lali, went missing from the house without informing any member of the family. Upon discovering that her daughter was missing, the petitioner immediately made all possible efforts to trace her by searching the nearby localities and making enquiries from relatives, friends and acquaintances; however, no information regarding her whereabouts could be gathered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner promptly lodged a missing person report at Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur on 23.04.2026. Despite the passage of considerable time, the respondent police authorities have failed to trace or recover the petitioner's minor daughter. He submits that the petitioner has reason to believe that respondent No. 6, Ankush Kurre @ Lucky, a resident of the same locality, has enticed away the petitioner's minor daughter and is keeping her in his illegal custody. It is further submitted that, in order to secure the recovery of her minor daughter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.05.2026 before the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur and thereafter submitted representations dated 14.05.2026 before the Superintendent of Police, 4 Bilaspur as well as the Collector, Bilaspur, requesting immediate action. Since no effective action has been taken despite such representations, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner's daughter is a minor, her continued custody with respondent No. 6, if any, would be wholly illegal and unauthorized. He, therefore, prays that an appropriate writ of habeas corpus be issued directing the respondent authorities to trace the minor girl and produce her before this Court. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that upon receiving information regarding the disappearance of the petitioner's daughter, a missing person report was registered at Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur. Thereafter, an FIR against an unknown person has also been registered and the matter is under investigation. He submits that the investigating agency is taking steps in accordance with law for tracing the missing girl. It is, therefore, submitted that no case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is made out. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus is an effective means of immediate release from the unlawful detention, whether in 5 prison or in private custody. Physical confinement is not necessary to constitute detention. Control and custody are sufficient. For issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention of the subject. 10. While dealing with a petition of habeas corpus, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and others [(1973) 2 SCC 674] traced the history, nature and scope of the writ of habeas corpus. It has been held by their Lordships that it is a writ of immemorial antiquity whose first threads are woven deeply “within the seamless web of history and untraceable among countless incidents that constituted a total historical pattern of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence”. Their Lordships further held that the primary object of this writ is the immediate determination of the right of the applicant's freedom and that was its substance and its end. Their Lordships further explaining the nature and scope of a writ of habeas corpus held in paragraph 4 as under: - “The writ of habeas corpus is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no doubt, a command addressed to a person who is alleged to have another person unlawfully in his custody requiring him to bring the body of such person before the Court, but the production of the body of the person detained is directed in order that the circumstances of his detention may be enquired into, or to put it differently, 6 “in the order that appropriate judgment be rendered on judicial enquiry into the alleged unlawful restrain”. But the writ is primarily designed to give a person restrained of his liberty a speedy and effective remedy for having the legality of his detention enquired into and determined and if the detention is found to be unlawful, having himself discharged and freed from such restraint. The most characteristic element of the writ is its peremptoriness. The essential and leading theory of the whole procedure is the immediate determination of the right to the applicant's freedom and his release, if the detention is found to be unlawful. That is the primary purpose of the writ, that is its substance and end. The production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained is ancillary to this main purpose of the writ. It is merely a means for achieving the end which is to secure the liberty of the subject illegally detained.” 11. In the matter of Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj and another [(2007) 10 SCC 190], while explaining the nature of writ of habeas corpus, Their Lordships of the 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 unlawful detention. Paragraph 7 of the decision states 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 7 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.” 12. The Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to deal with such a matter in the case of Smt. Nirmala Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [WPHC No. 13/2016 decided on 28.02.2017, reported in MANU/CG/0291/2017]. The Division Bench observed that in the writ petition, which was filed seeking appropriate writ of habeas corpus for direction to respondents to produce husband of petitioner before Court, the petitioner had not made any averment in entire petition that her husband had been illegally detained by official respondents, and accordingly, held that the writ of habeas corpus is not to be issued as a matter of course and clear grounds must be made out for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. As the petitioner had failed to plead and establish necessary ingredients for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, this Court dismissed the petition. 13. The High Court of Calcutta in the case of Swapan Das v. State of West Bengal and Others in W.P. No. 17965(W) of 2013 dated 28.06.2013, made an observation, which reads as follows: “A habeas corpus writ is to be issued only when the person concerning whose liberty the petition has been filed is illegally detained by a respondent in the petition. On the basis of a habeas corpus petition the 8 power under art. 226 is not to be exercised for tracing a missing person engaging an investigating agency empowered to investigate a case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The investigation, if in progress, is to be overseen by the criminal court. Here the petitioner is asking this court to direct the police to track down his missing son. For these reasons, we dismiss the WP. No costs. Certified xerox.” 14. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of Sulochana Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [2008 (2) MPHT 233], made an observation, which reads as follows: “12. 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.” 15. The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the matter of Nimananda Biswal vs State of Odisha and others, reported in 2023 SCC Online Ori 5628, held in para 10 as under:- “10. Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in a casual and routine manner. Though it is a writ of 9 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.” 16. 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 Indian Penal Code 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 10 such cases of missing persons. 17. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's minor daughter has been missing since 22.04.2026 and that a missing person report was lodged on 23.04.2026. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that an FIR has subsequently been registered against an unknown person and the investigation is in progress. Though the petitioner has expressed an apprehension that respondent No. 6 has enticed away her minor daughter and is keeping her in his illegal custody, except for such suspicion, there is no prima facie material placed on record to establish that the minor girl is in the illegal detention or unlawful custody of respondent No. 6 or any other person. No material has been produced to substantiate the allegation of illegal confinement so as to satisfy the essential requirement for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 18. The relief sought by the petitioner is essentially for tracing and recovery of her missing minor daughter. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in the decisions referred to hereinabove, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked merely for tracing a missing person in the absence of a prima facie case of illegal detention. Such matters fall within the domain of investigation by the police in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are required to be monitored by the competent criminal Court, wherever necessary. 11 19. Since the essential ingredient for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, namely, prima facie proof of illegal detention, is absent in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ of habeas corpus. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, observed that the investigating agency shall continue with the investigation and make all earnest efforts, strictly in accordance with law, to trace the petitioner's missing minor daughter at the earliest. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan