Kiran Raj

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Jabalpur Bench has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the production of her missing daughter and two minor grandchildren, ruling that there was no evidence of unlawful confinement. The court found that the missing individuals had left voluntarily and were not under illegal detention, thereby making the writ petition untenable.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the mother of the missing woman, claiming that her daughter and grandchildren had been wrongfully confined by two individuals, Dileep Choudhary and Kavita Choudhary, from Kantora village in Jabalpur district. The petitioner had initially lodged a missing person report on April 5, 2023, at Shahpura Police Station, Jabalpur, reporting the disappearance of her daughter along with her children.

Dissatisfied with the police investigation, the petitioner approached the High Court, seeking judicial intervention to direct law enforcement authorities to locate and produce the missing individuals. The court took cognizance of the matter and issued notices to the respondents on July 25, 2023, seeking a status report on the investigation.

The court examined multiple status reports submitted by the police, including the latest one dated January 17, 2025. The reports detailed the extensive search efforts undertaken by law enforcement, which included investigations in Odisha, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and Jabalpur. The court noted that despite these efforts, the individuals could not be traced initially.

However, according to the third status report, the missing woman and her children had voluntarily visited her parental home in Raiyakheda village on December 3, 2023. A formal memorandum (Panchnama) was prepared, confirming that she had been seen by multiple witnesses. The police also recorded statements from family members, including Roshni Choudhary and Arjun Singh Choudhary, who stated that the woman had visited their residence but later left for another location of her own accord.

Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated the legal principle that a writ of habeas corpus is applicable only in cases where unlawful detention is established. It referred to Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1973) 2 SCC 674, which defines habeas corpus as a procedural writ to secure release from illegal restraint. The court observed: "A writ of habeas corpus is an effective means of immediate release from an unlawful detention. Physical confinement is not necessary to constitute detention; however, control or custody are sufficient for issuance of the writ. The petitioner must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention."

Further, citing Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj (2007) 10 SCC 190, the court emphasized that mere disappearance or missing status of a person does not warrant the issuance of habeas corpus unless illegal detention is demonstrated. It stated: "A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in a casual and routine manner. Illegal confinement is a precondition for the issuance of this writ, and it cannot be granted in cases of missing persons where no unlawful detention is evident."

The Division Bench also relied on precedent from Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha (2020) 40 SCC 161, reaffirming that cases of missing persons should be handled under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), rather than through habeas corpus petitions.

Based on the findings, the court held that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful detention. It concluded that the missing woman and her children had left voluntarily, and there was no evidence of coercion or illegal confinement by any authority or private individuals.

The court, therefore, dismissed the habeas corpus petition while directing law enforcement authorities to continue their search efforts as per the missing person report lodged by the petitioner.

Case Title: Simmi Bai v. Shrimaan Police Mahanirikshak Mahodaya and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 16475 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Vinay Saraf

[Read/Download order]