WPCRL/100/2026 of JHIN PATTASHANI Vs SUPDT. OF POLICE, PURI on 17 August 2026

ORDER

17.08.2026

01.

1. The instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by the mother of the minor girl seeking her search and production before this Court. It is stated that the minor daughter of the Petitioner went missing from the house on 01.07.2026 and, on the following day, an F.I.R. came to be lodged before the Jodapadar (Gadisagoda) Police Station, which was registered as Jodapadar P.S. Case No.153 of 2026 under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Petitioner alleges that one Piku Jayasingh had kidnapped the minor girl and complains that despite the lapse of time, the girl has not been rescued.

2. We have considered the question as to whether a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is maintainable in respect of a person who is stated to be missing. We have been given to understand that a writ petition in relation to a missing child or a missing person is not an appropriate remedy. The support can be lent to a Co-ordinate Bench decision rendered in Nimananda Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 5628 where the said coordinate Bench took note of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 190, where the Hon’ble Apex Court succinctly highlighted that the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of the habeas corpus cannot be used as a device or a tool in all and every cases. The greatness of such powers lies primarily on an illegal confinement and the power to be exercised ex debito justitiae in a subsequent decision rendered in Home Secretary (Prisons) Vs. H. Nilofer Nisha, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 161, the apex Court traces the origin of the phrase “habeas corpus” from a latin maxim to mean to produce the body but before the Court embarked its journey on such peripheral, it has to be decided whether the body is under the illegal detention or not.

3. The co-ordinate Bench ultimately held in unequivocal term that the writ in the nature of habeas corpus is not maintainable in case of a missing person in the following: “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 missing 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.”

4. We do not find any dissent to the view expressed by the co- ordinate Bench nor we find any ambiguity and/or illegality there at. The comity of the judicial discipline, adherence of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench and in the event, the later coordinate Bench do not agree with the proposition of law expounded in the earlier judgment, the only course open is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. We don’t find such situation to have arisen in the instant case, as we find that the tool of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be stretched nor be adopted in relation to a missing person.

5. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The same is hereby dismissed.

6. We make it clear, however, that dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioner from pursuing such other remedy as may be available to her in law, nor shall it come in the way of the investigating agency in taking all appropriate and expeditious steps

for tracing and recovering the minor girl in connection with Jodapadar P.S. Case No.153 of 2026.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Bijay/Sarbani Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2026 18:58:21 Signature Not Verified