[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Parkhit Ram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15296-DB
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
NAFR
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.04.06
10:43:57 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPHC No. 8 of 2026
Parkhit Ram Yadav S/o Mayaram Yadav Aged About 40 Years Resident
Of Village- Girgira P.S. Chandrapur District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home
Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.)
3 - Superintendent Of Police Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.)
4 - Station House Officer Through Police Station Chandrapur District-
Sakti Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
02.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priaynk Rathi, Govt. Advocate for
respondent/ State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate
direction to the respondent authorities to consider the complaint
dated 30.01.2026 and to release missing his minor daughter,
aged about 17 year, and 08 month (petitioner's daughter) at the
earliest and filed this petitioner with the following relief:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to allow habeas corpus writ petition, in the
interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue writ of habeas corpus with direction to
respondent authorities to take appropriate legal
action on missing FIR No. 20/2026 dated
24.01.2026 and to release his minor daughter (xxx)
in custody of the petitioner from custody of unknown
kidnapper person at the earliest, in the interest of
justice.
10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the
facts and circumstances of the case, may also be
granted."
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner, has
approached this Court seeking appropriate directions in respect of
his minor daughter, aged about 17 years and 08 months, who
went missing on 23.01.2026 after leaving for Saraswati Pooja at
Government High School, Girgira (Sidhwa Bhantha), but did not
return home thereafter. Upon lodging of a missing report, the
concerned Police Station Chandrapur, District Sakti (C.G.)
registered FIR No. 20/2026 dated 24.01.2026 under Section
137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 363 IPC)
against an unknown person for the offence of kidnapping
(Annexure P-2). However, despite lapse of more than two months,
no effective investigation has been carried out by the police
authorities, and no progress has been made in tracing the minor
girl, causing immense mental agony and hardship to the petitioner
and his family. Being left with no efficacious alternative remedy,
the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking directions
to the respondent authorities to conduct a proper investigation
and secure the safe recovery of his minor daughter at the earliest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the minor
daughter of the petitioner, aged about 17 years and 08 months,
who is a student of Class 12th, has been missing since
23.01.2026 when she had gone to attend Saraswati Puja at her
school, and despite prompt lodging of FIR No. 20/2026 dated
24.01.2026 under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023
(kidnapping), the respondent police authorities have failed to
conduct any effective or meaningful investigation to trace and
recover the minor girl. The inaction and apathy on the part of the
authorities, even after lapse of more than two months, is arbitrary,
illegal and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights, causing
immense mental agony, hardship and deprivation of love and
affection to the petitioner and his family members. It is further
submitted that the minor girl continues to remain out of the lawful
custody of the petitioner, and there is an urgent need for
immediate and proper investigation to secure her safe recovery.
Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue
appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to take
expeditious and effective steps in the investigation and ensure the
tracing and safe return of the petitioner's minor daughter, in the
interest of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the present
petition is not maintainable in the nature of a writ of habeas
corpus, as there is no material on record to establish that the
alleged detenue is in illegal or unlawful custody of any identified
person or authority. The FIR has already been registered for the
offence of kidnapping against an unknown person, and the matter
is under investigation by the competent police authorities in
accordance with law. It is a settled position that a writ of habeas
corpus cannot be invoked in cases of missing persons where
investigation is in progress and the custody is not attributable to
any specific individual. The petitioner has an efficacious
alternative remedy under the criminal law framework to pursue the
investigation and seek appropriate directions before the
jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the present petition, being
misconceived and not maintainable in law, deserves to be
dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that once the competent police authorities have already
registered a missing report and pursuant to which an FIR has
already been registered under the relevant provisions of the
B.N.S., 2023 against an unknown person, and the matter is
presently under investigation by the competent police authorities,
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not required to be
invoked at this stage. The relief sought by the petitioner, squarely
falls within the domain of the investigating agency.
8. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanu
Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1973) 2 SCC 674, has
held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only where there
is a prima facie case of illegal detention. In absence of any
material indicating that the missing person is under unlawful
detention, and when the matter is already under investigation
pursuant to registration of FIR, the writ petition is not
maintainable.
9. In absence of any such material, and when the matter is already
under investigation pursuant to registration of missing report, this
Court finds that the present writ petition is not maintainable.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being not maintainable at
this stage, is hereby dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to
take recourse to law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika / Chandra
