AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alleging that his father, namely A.Balu, aged about 78 years, went missing and suspecting that he is in illegal custody, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
The case of the petitioner is that his father, namely A.Balu, left the house on 10.09.2026 for the purpose of having tea in a nearby shop, following which he went missing. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the respondent-police. Pursuant to the said complaint, a case of "Man-Missing" was registered in Crime No.364 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent. However, as no effective steps have been taken by the respondent-police to trace the petitioner's father, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the 1st respondent on 25.09.2026, which evoked no response. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a ‘Man-Missing’ case was registered in Crime No.364 of 2026; that, investigation is going on; that it is not a case of illegal detention and therefore, this petition is not maintainable. However, he fairly submitted that the respondent-police are continuing with the investigation.
From the facts of the case on hand, this Court finds that this habeas corpus petition is in respect of a person who is simply missing and is not under any unlawful detention. Unlawful detention is a sine qua non for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
A Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.08.2025 passed in H.C.P.(MD) Nos.793 and 658 of 2025, has relied on the following orders:-
Simmi Bai vs. Shrimaan Police Mahanirishak Mahodaya and others, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine MP 893;
Kalaiarasi vs. State (H.C.P.No.2191 of 2017 decided on 07.05.2018) and;
K.Sukumari vs. The Superintendent of Police (Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19255 of 2016 decided on 18.09.2018) and held that a habeas corpus petition in respect of a missing person, whose detention is not stated to be unlawful or illegal, is not maintainable.
In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed with a direction to the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation in accordance with the directions issued in K.Sukumari, supra and take all necessary steps to trace the missing person and as and when the missing person is secured or his whereabouts is identified, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.