Writ of Habeas Corpus — Maintainability — Missing person — Absence of allegation of illegal detention — Effect. Where the admitted case of the petitioner is that the corpus voluntarily left the house and his whereabouts are unknown, and a “man missing” case has already been registered and is under investigation, in the absence of any pleading or allegation of illegal confinement or detention by the State, its officers, or any private individual, a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. Illegal detention is the sine qua non for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. (Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 226 — Writ of Habeas Corpus — Maintainability — Missing person — Absence of allegation of illegal detention — Effect.
Where the admitted case of the petitioner is that the corpus voluntarily left the house and his whereabouts are unknown, and a “man missing” case has already been registered and is under investigation, in the absence of any pleading or allegation of illegal confinement or detention by the State, its officers, or any private individual, a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable.
Illegal detention is the sine qua non for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.
(Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

Habeas Corpus — Condition precedent — Pleadings — Suspicion without factual foundation — Not permissible.
A plea of suspicion regarding illegal detention raised for the first time during arguments, without any factual foundation in the writ pleadings, cannot be entertained or countenanced by the Constitutional Court.
(Paras 10, 11)

Criminal Procedure — Missing person — Police investigation — Scope of constitutional jurisdiction.
Cases of missing persons are required to be investigated under the regular provisions of law, and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court cannot be invoked in the absence of allegations of illegal detention.
(Paras 9, 12, 13)

Directions — Police investigation — Man missing case.
Even while dismissing the Habeas Corpus petition as not maintainable, the Police authorities were directed to continue the investigation and make efforts to trace the whereabouts of the missing person and take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
(Para 13)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS (Paragraph-wise)

1. Nature of Petition
   The writ petition was filed by the mother of the corpus seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging failure of police authorities to trace her son who was missing since 06.10.2025. (Para 1)

2. Status of the Corpus
   The corpus was a major and married person, having matrimonial disputes and living separately from his wife. (Para 3)

3. Circumstances of Missing
   It was an admitted case that the corpus left the house voluntarily on 06.10.2025 at about 9.00 A.M. to attend his car-driving duty and did not return thereafter. (Paras 3, 8)

4. Police Action
   A complaint was lodged by the sister of the corpus on 09.10.2025, pursuant to which Crime No.412 of 2025 was registered as a “man missing” case, and investigation was in progress. (Paras 3, 6)

5. Absence of Detention Allegation
   There was no allegation in the writ affidavit that the corpus was illegally detained or confined by any person, authority, or State agency. (Paras 5, 8, 11)

6. Belated Suspicion Argument
   An argument regarding suspicion against a woman named Divya and her family was raised only during hearing, without any pleadings to that effect. (Paras 10, 11)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Core Legal Issue
   Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable in a case of a missing person, where there is no allegation or pleading of illegal detention.

2. Settled Legal Position
   The Court reiterated that unlawful detention is a condition precedent for invoking Habeas Corpus jurisdiction. (Paras 8, 9)

3. Reliance on Precedent
   The Court relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2025 SCC OnLine MP 893, which, after surveying Supreme Court jurisprudence, held that Habeas Corpus does not lie in missing person cases. (Paras 5, 8, 9)

4. Supreme Court Authority
   The principle laid down in (2020) 14 SCC 161 was extracted to reiterate that Habeas Corpus lies only where there is deprivation of personal liberty by unlawful detention. (Para 8)

5. Limits of Constitutional Jurisdiction
   The Court emphasized that missing person cases must proceed under the regular criminal law framework, and constitutional courts should not convert Habeas Corpus proceedings into supervisory investigations. (Paras 9, 12)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in respect of a missing person where the admitted case is that the person voluntarily left, a “man missing” case is registered, and there is neither an allegation nor a factual foundation in the pleadings suggesting illegal detention or confinement by the State, its officers, or any private individual; unlawful detention being the sine qua non for issuance of the writ.