Telangana High Court
Takur Balaji vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.30873 OF 2024
% 26--03--2025
# Takur Balaji
... Petitioner
vs.
$ 1. The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Bandlapelli Naresh
^Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Swaroop Oorilla,
Special Government Pleader
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
2023 SCC online Orissa 5628
(2007) 10 SCC 190
(2008) 2 MPHT 233
(2018) 3 Mad LJ (Cri) 712
2022 SCC online Chandigarh 737
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION No. 30873 OF 2024
Between:
Takur Balaji
... Petitioner
And
1. The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 26.03.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________________
MOUSHUMI BATTACHARYA,J
______________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.30873 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)
1. The present petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus
for production of the petitioner’s son, Takur Kiran Singh, age 27 years,
resident of H.No.24-245/5-7, Ashok Road, Pochamma Temple, Vasudev
Colony, Mancherial Town, Mancherial District.
2. It is alleged in the affidavit that Takur Kiran Singh, age 27, is
working in Sri Lakshminarayana Jewellery Shop, Mancherial. Two months
ago, petitioner’s son and his wife were quarrelling with each other,
thereby the wife of Takur Kiran Singh left the house and petitioner’s son
never returned home. Petitioner has enquired with the owner of the shop
about his son, then he came to know that his son went to Chennai to give
cash. On 18.10.2024, when the petitioner was in the hospital due to ill
health, the owner of the shop has called him and informed that his son
(Takur Kiran Singh) is not lifting his mobile and thereby the petitioner
gave a report before respondent No.4 as man-missing. FIR is registered
on 19.10.2024. Respondent No.4, (SHO, Mancherial Town Police Station,
Ramagundam), did not conduct investigation in the crime and they have
not taken any steps to crack down petitioner’s son. It is clear that his son
4
was sent by the owner of the shop with 40 lakhs and anticipating that his
son was kidnapped by other persons, not detained by his wife’s family.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader has filed written instructions
and submits that on 19.10.2024 at about 12:30 hours petitioner came to
Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam and lodged a petition
stating that his son (Takur Kiran Singh, age 27 years) has been working
in Sri Laxminarayana Jewellery shop Mancherial. For the past 70 days, his
son used to quarrel with his wife Smt. Takur Setendriya Rani, on that his
daughter-in-law went to her parents house, since then his son was
mentally depressed and he neither went to the shop nor visited the
house. On 17.10.2024, Jewellery shop owner’s son informed that
petitioner’s son was sent to Chennai on duty. Basing on the report of the
petitioner, SI of police registered a case in Crime No. 675/2024 as man-
missing on 19.10.2024. SI of police has examined witnesses and has also
prepared a lookout notice, sent to the Office of Commissioner of Police,
Ramagundam, along with radio message through TSPMS. SI of police
deputed men on id duty in order to trace out the missing person and also
prepared a requisition and forward the same to the Commissioner of
Police with a request to furnish the call details.
4. It is further submitted that SI of police has obtained the Bank
Statement from the Bank Manager of HDFC bank, Union Bank of India,
State Bank of India, ICICI Bank and Bank of Baroda, verified the details
and found that the missing person made transactions of Rs.5,000/- to his
5
sister Ms.Bhavani’s account of State Bank of India on 18.10.2024. While
the investigation is in progress, the owner of Sri Laxminarayana Jewellery
shop (Sri Devarakonda Narasimha Chary) lodged a complaint with
respondent No.4 on 29.10.2024 that on 17.10.2024 at about 16:00 hours
he has handed over 47 lakhs to Kiran Singh Takur for business purpose to
go to Chennai and the complainant’s son by name Sandeep has boarded
Kiran Singh Takur in Navajeevan Express Train. Kiran Singh Takur was in
contact with Narasimha Chary till 14:00 hours and thereafter he switched
off his mobile phone. Basing on the complaint of Sri Devarakonda
Narasimha Chary, case in Crime No.691/2024 is registered under Sections
316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, dated 29.10.2024 as man-missing.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that Writ of Habeas
Corpus is not maintainable of missing persons, in support of his
contention he relied on a decision in the case of Nimananda Biswal Vs.
State of Odisha and others. 1
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed additional affidavit on
10.03.2025 without the leave of the Court and the same was declined
vide order dated 10.03.2025. Petitioner’s counsel was permitted to rely
on one decision which shall be filed in the Registry by 11.03.2025 with an
advance copy to the learned Special Government Pleader, but he failed to
do so.
1 2023 SCC online Orissa 5628
6
7. The Court has to be satisfied about the factum of illegal detention
before it proceeds to entertain a petition seeking issuance of Writ of
Habeas Corpus. Petitioner has not produced any material to show that his
son has been detained illegally by anyone.
8. The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. Yumnam
Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj 2, was of the opinion that
petitioner must show prima facie case of unlawful detention before it
urges the Court to issue the prerogative Writ of Habeas Corpus and held
as follows:
“7. Article 21 of the Constitution having declared that no person
shall be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with
the procedure established by law, a machinery was definitely
needed to examine the question of illegal detention with utmost
promptitude. The writ of habeas corpus is a device of this
nature. Blackstone called it “the great and efficacious writ in all
manner of illegal confinement”. The writ has been described as
a writ of right which is grantable ex debito justitiae. Though a
writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The applicant must show
a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, he
shows such a cause and the return is not good and sufficient,
he is entitled to this writ as of right.”
9. In Sulochana Bai v. State of M.P. 3, Division Bench of Madhya
Pradesh High Court held as follows:
2 (2007) 10 SCC 190
3 (2008) 2 MPHT 233
7“We have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight
that the writ of habeas corpus can only be issued when there is
assertion of wrongful confinement. In the present case, what
has been asserted in the writ petition is that her father-in-law
has been missing for last four years and a missing report has
been lodged at the police station. What action should have been
taken by the police that cannot be the matter of habeas corpus
because there is no allegation whatsoever that there has been
wrongful confinement by the police or any private person. In
the result, the writ petition is not maintainable and is
accordingly dismissed.”
10. In Selvaraj v. State 4, Division Bench of Madras High Court held as
follows:
19. The constitutional Courts across the country
predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a
ground of “illegal detention” and a strong suspicion about any
such “illegal detention” is a condition precedent for moving a
Habeas Corpus petition and the Constitutional Courts shall be
restrained in entertaining such Habeas Corpus petition, where
there is no allegation of “illegal detention” or suspicion about
any such “illegal detention”. Man/Women missing cases cannot
be brought under the provision of the Habeas Corpus petition.
Man/Women missing cases are to be registered under the
regular provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the Police
officials concerned are bound to investigate the same in the
manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such
cases are to be dealt as regular cases by the competent Court
of Law and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional
4 (2018) 3 Mad LJ (Cri) 712
8
Courts cannot be invoked for the purpose of dealing with such
Man/Women Missing cases.”
11. In Jaymati Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh 5, Division Bench of
Chandigarh High Court held as follows:
“14. Thus, the constitutional Courts across the country
predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a
ground of “illegal detention” and a strong suspicion about any
such “illegal detention” is a condition precedent for moving a
Habeas Corpus petition and the Constitutional Courts shall not
entertain a Habeas Corpus petition, where there is no allegation
of “illegal detention” or suspicion about any such “illegal
detention”. Cases of missing persons cannot be brought under
the provision of the Habeas Corpus petition. Cases of missing
persons are to be registered under the regular provisions of the
Penal Code, 1860 and the Police officials concerned are bound
to investigate the same in the manner prescribed under the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Such cases are to be dealt as
regular cases by the competent Court of Law and the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts cannot be
invoked for the purpose of dealing with such cases of missing
persons.
15. It is seen in the instant case that the petitioner has not
made any averment in the entire writ petition that her daughter
Juhi Sahu has been illegally detained either by the official
respondents or by the respondent No.7. Averment made in the
writ petition, as a whole, do not disclose the illegal detention of
Juhi Sahu by private or official respondents. The petitioner only
apprehends that the respondent No.7 and his family members5 2022 SCC online Chandigarh 737
9might have murdered Juhi Sahu. As such, unlawful detention of
the petitioner’s daughter, either by private person or
custody/control/detention by the respondents is not pleaded,
established or urged before this Court, only apprehension of
alleged criminal act by respondent No. 7 and his family
members has been expressed. As already observed in the
above-stated paragraphs, a writ of habeas corpus is not to be
issued as a matter of course and clear grounds must be made
out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. In the instant case,
the petitioner has miserably failed to plead and establish the
necessary ingredients for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus
and as such, the extraordinary writ cannot be issued at the
instance of the petitioner for production of a missing person, as
it is the case of the petitioner herself that her daughter is
missing since 10-2-2019.”
12. In Nimananda Biswal (supra), Division Bench of Orissa High Court
has held as follows:
“10. Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in a casual and
routine manner. Though it is a writ of right, it is not a writ of
course. The writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and
power can be exercised in clear case. Illegal confinement is a
pre-condition to issue a writ of habeas corpus. It cannot be
issued in respect of any and every missing person more so
when no named person is alleged to be responsible for the
‘illegal detention’ of the person for whose production before
the Court, a writ is to be issued. On the basis of a habeas
corpus petition, the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not to be exercised for tracing a
10missing person engaging an investigating agency empowered
to investigate a case under Cr. P.C.
11. In this case, the petitioner has not established a prima
facie case of ‘unlawful detention’ of his daughter by any
particular person, rather it is submitted on his behalf that his
daughter has been missing. Therefore, we are of the
considered view that a petition seeking the issuance of the
writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained to trace out a
missing person and for such purpose, the petitioner can
pursue other effective remedy.”
13. The material goes to show that Takur Kiran Singh (missing person)
stayed at Span Guest House in Kulandai Street, Parktown, Chennai
600003 on 18.10.2024 at 06.20 AM and checked out from the guest
house at 16:30 hours on the same day which is captured in the CCTV
footage of that hotel. The detenu has made financial transactions of
Rs.74,000/- on 18.10.2024, the crime team has collected the information
from e-capture, the alleged detenu has given Rs.74,00,000/- cash to
E.Vinay Kumar of Chennai and requested him to deposit the said amount
in his Bank account vide No.610102010004975 of Union Bank,
accordingly E.Vinay Kumar has deposited the amount in the Bank account
of the missing person. The material further goes to show that Takur
Tirupuvan Singh S/o Ravindar Singh, age 18 years, parcel pickup person,
resident of Warangal, now at Mandamari, who is the cousin of the missing
person, who had seen him last in Warangal railway station while he was
going to Chennai on 05.02.2025. Respondent No.4 is investigating Crime
11
No.675 of 2024 and Crime No.691 of 2024 and putting their best efforts
to trace out the missing person by name Takur Kiran Singh, age 27 years
by deploying the team.
14. Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of unlawful
detention of his son (Takur Kiran Singh) by any particular person, in view
of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts stated
supra, we are of the considered view that a petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be entertained to trace out a missing
person for such purpose and the petitioner can pursue other effective
remedies.
15. Accordingly, Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without cost.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
______________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
26.03.2025
Dua
[ad_1]
Source link