AMAR LAXMAN RAYAMANE vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS NO.100026 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
AMAR LAXMAN RAYAMANE
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. NASALAPUR VILLAGE,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIJAY K.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY IS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
MARKET POLICE STATION,
OPP. CENTRAL BUS STAND,
BELAGAVI-590001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W
SRI.RAKESH M.BILKI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE THE BROTHER
OF THE PETITIONER VIZ. AKASH LAXMAN RAYAMANE BEFORE THIS
HON’BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
Digitally signed
by PRATIBHA
M PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.11.12
12:31:14 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI )
The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for
the following relief:
“Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ
or order or direction in the nature of habeas
corpus to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
immediately produce the brother of the Petitioner
viz. Akash Laxman Rayamane before this Hon’ble
Court in the interest of justice and equiry.”
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Vijay K. Naik appearing
for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General
Sri. Gangadhar J.M. and the learned Government Advocate
Sri. Rakesh M. Bilki appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts enumerated are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner, Amar Laxman Rayamane, aged about
28 years, is a permanent resident of Nasalapur Village, Raibag
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
Taluk, Belagavi District. He resides with his father, Sri. Laxman,
his mother, Smt. Indu, and his younger brother, Akash Laxman
1
Rayamane . The petitioner works as a daily-wage coolie at
Ashoka Plant 3, Belagavi, while his parents work as agricultural
coolies in Nasalapur Village. The detenue holds a Master of
Business Administration (MBA) degree and was actively
preparing for competitive examinations.
3.2. On 07.10.2026, the detenue left his home in
Nasalapur Village, stating that he was going to Belagavi in
search of employment opportunities and informing his family
that he would return within two days. Upon reaching Belagavi,
he checked into Yatri Lodge, situated near the Central Bus
Stand, Belagavi, where he stayed on 07.10.2026, 08.10.2026,
and 09.10.2026.
3.3. On 09.10.2026, at approximately 5:10 p.m., the
petitioner attempted to contact the detenue on his mobile
phone, but the call went unanswered. Shortly thereafter, at
approximately 5:20 p.m., the detenue returned the call and
1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘detenue’
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
informed the petitioner that he was travelling to Dharwad for
work and would call again later.
3.4. Later that day, at approximately 7:50 p.m., the
detenue called the petitioner and informed him that his
classmate, Ms. Priyanka Borannavar, her brother, Mr. Prajwal
Borannavar, their grandfather, Mr. Hanumant Naik, and six
unidentified persons had allegedly abducted him from Belagavi
and taken him to an undisclosed location in Dharwad, where he
was being confined. The detenue requested the petitioner to
come to Dharwad along with their parents without informing
anyone else. He further stated that the aforesaid persons were
demanding a ransom of ₹50,00,000/- for his release and, in the
event that the amount could not be arranged, had asked him to
bring his cheque book. During the call, Mr. Prajwal Borannavar
allegedly snatched the mobile phone from the detenue and
directed the petitioner to bring ₹50,00,000/- in cash to
Dharwad immediately.
3.5. On 10.10.2026, at approximately 10:00 a.m., the
petitioner approached respondent No.3, the Market Police
Station, Belagavi, and sought to lodge a complaint regarding
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
the alleged kidnapping of the detenue for ransom. According to
the petitioner, the information was entered in the Station Diary,
but no FIR was registered. The petitioner’s mobile number was
recorded, and he was assured that an inquiry would be
conducted within two days.
3.6. As the petitioner did not receive any further
information from the police by the evening of 10.10.2026, he,
along with his mother, Smt. Indu, proceeded to Dharwad with
the cheque book, as they had been unable to arrange the
demanded amount. The petitioner then called the detenue’s
mobile phone, which was answered by Mr. Prajwal Borannavar,
who instructed them to come near the Tahsildar’s Office,
Dharwad. When the petitioner and his mother reached the said
place, the aforesaid persons allegedly met them. Ms. Priyanka
Borannavar informed them that Akash was in their custody and
demanded ₹50,00,000/- for his release.
3.7. The petitioner and his mother were allegedly
informed that they could take Akash and his cheque book only
upon payment of ₹50,00,000/-. Apprehending danger to
Akash’s life, his mother requested time until 14.10.2026 to
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
arrange the money. The aforesaid persons allegedly threatened
the petitioner and his mother, stating that, if the amount was
not paid, they would either implicate Akash in a false rape case
or take his life. When the petitioner’s mother requested them to
at least show her Akash’s face, they allegedly refused to do so.
3.8. Thereafter, the petitioner and his mother returned to
Nasalapur Village and made every possible effort to arrange the
demanded amount while awaiting some breakthrough in the
police investigation. As no progress was communicated by the
Market Police Station, the petitioner submitted a detailed
written representation to respondent No.2 on 13.10.2026.
3.9. On 13.10.2026, at approximately 1:30 p.m., the
petitioner received a phone call from the detenue, who
allegedly informed him that he was being subjected to severe
physical and mental torture and pleaded with him to secure his
release at the earliest. Apprehending an imminent threat to the
detenue’s life and personal liberty, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing the present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
respondents Nos.1 to 3 to rescue the detenue and produce him
before this Court.
3.10. The respondent-Police traced the detenue and
produced him before this Court. In the course of the search,
the Police made inquiries at several police stations and
examined CCTV footage from various locations to ascertain his
whereabouts.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the respondents submitted that, on 10.10.2026, the petitioner
had approached respondent No.3 to lodge a complaint. The
learned AAG further submitted that the petitioner had received
a phone call from the detenue informing him of his
whereabouts. Upon interaction with the detenue, who is a
major aged about 28 years and holds a postgraduate degree, it
was ascertained that he was not in the illegal custody of any
person. The detenue stated that he and Ms. Priyanka
Borannavar, who is also a major, had been living together of
their own free will for more than a year.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
5. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner did not
wish to prosecute the petition further and sought permission of
this Court to withdraw the same.
6. Ordinarily, when a petitioner seeks leave to withdraw
a petition, this Court would permit such withdrawal and close
the proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
however, merely permitting the petitioner to withdraw would
not suffice. This is because a petition seeking a writ of habeas
corpus is not an ordinary proceeding, and the jurisdiction it
invokes cannot be set in motion casually or as a matter of
cause. A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy
intended to secure the release of a person from unlawful
detention. It cannot be invoked on the basis of allegations that
are not substantiated by the facts, nor can it be used as an
instrument to settle personal or family disputes. Two
consenting adults have the right to choose their partners and
live together in accordance with their own free will, and such a
choice is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
7. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioner
had knowledge of the detenue’s whereabouts through a
telephone conversation with the detenue, even before
approaching the Police. Despite having such knowledge, the
petitioner is stated to have suppressed this material fact and
instituted the present petition alleging kidnapping for ransom.
Upon the detenue being traced and produced before this Court,
the allegations of unlawful detention were not substantiated.
The material placed before this Court indicates that the matter
arose out of a personal and family dispute concerning the
detenue’s relationship with Ms. Priyanka Borannavar.
8. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner set the
Police machinery in motion, resulting in searches at several
police stations and the examination of CCTV footage at various
locations. This exercise entailed the deployment of public
resources that could otherwise have been utilised for
investigating genuine cases requiring Police intervention.
9. A litigant who approaches this Court with unclean
hands and suppresses material facts is not entitled to
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17225-DB
WPHC No. 100026 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020194752026
discretionary relief. The abuse of the process of the Court,
particularly where it results in the unnecessary deployment of
public resources, must be discouraged. In the circumstances of
the present case, the imposition of costs is warranted.
10. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
b) The petitioner shall pay costs of ₹5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the High Court
Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, within
four weeks from the date of this order. In the
event of failure to pay the costs within the
stipulated period, the matter shall be listed
before the Court by the Registrar for
appropriate orders.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
PMP
CT:VH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1