Habeas Corpus Plea Cannot Routinely Be Filed On Being Dissatisfied With Probe In Missing Persons Cases: Rajasthan High Court

While dismissing a habeas corpus writ petition, Rajasthan High Court held that the writ jurisdiction in the case of a missing person could not be invoked as a matter of routine to know the status of investigation or being dissatisfied with the manner of such investigation.

The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that the scope of Habeas Corpus had been enlarged with time, but there could not be a straitjacket formula for interference in writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

Since criminal procedure law provided alternate remedies for supervision of investigation and, if needed, issuance of direction for effective investigation, such matters are to be dealt with by the competent court of law.

The petition was filed by the brother of a CRPF constable who failed to rejoin his duties after an extended medical leave, and was missing since then. It was the case of the petitioner that no effective steps were being taken on the missing report submitted.

Based on the status report filed by the State, it was submitted that the CRPF Authorities had declared the corpus as an absconder and arrest warrants were issued against him. It was further submitted that corpus was located moving freely at a Metro Station in Delhi and later at Tirupati.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to precedents on the principles governing the writ jurisdiction of habeas corpus, and reiterated that unlawful detention was a sine qua non for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. The petition must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention.

“In the case in hand there is no pleading or allegation of an illegal detention of the corpus, and one of the basis requisite for writ of Habeas Corpus is of illegal detention. Present is a case where the grievance is against the manner of investigation of MPR.”

In this background, the Court held that in case of missing person, the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked in a routine manner to know the status of the investigation, or on being dissatisfied with the same.

It was held that since there was alternative remedy available under criminal procedure laws for supervision of investigation or issuance of directions for effective investigation, competent court must deal with such matters.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Smt. Babita v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 349

Click Here To Read/Download Order