1 2026:CGHC:14470-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 6 of 2026 Rohit Kumar S/o Amrendra Kumar Aged About 21 Years (Student) Through His Father - Amrendra Kumar S/o Late Ramnarayan Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Mahavir Nagar, Delha, District- Gaya, Bihar. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dr. C.V. Raman University, Through Its Registrar, Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.27 11:51:11 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.03.2026 1. Heard Dr. Arpit Lall, 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 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to release the petitioner from illegal private detention of the respondent no. 6. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased direct the CBI or CID to investigate this case for the fast and effective result. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order whereby the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and suffering of the petitioner and his family members. 10.5 That, any other writs and direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner including the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded 3 in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned State counsel submits that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, and missing report has already been registered and investigation is underway. As such, the present petition is not maintainable. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the competent police authorities have already registered a missing report and the investigation is in progress, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not required to be invoked at this stage. The relief sought by the petitioner, squarely falls within the domain of the investigating agency. 5. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1973) 2 SCC 674, has held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only where there is a prima facie case of illegal detention. In absence of any material indicating that the missing person is under unlawful detention, and when the matter is already under investigation pursuant to registration of FIR, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. In absence of any such material, and when the matter is already under investigation pursuant to registration of missing report, this 4 Court finds that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being not maintainable at this stage, is hereby dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet