Madras High Court
Constitutional LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Habeas corpus is not maintainable for a missing person absent unlawful detention.

M.Abishek vs The State of Tamilnadu

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Habeas corpus is not maintainable for a missing person absent unlawful detention.. M.Abishek vs The State of Tamilnadu. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to secure his father, Murugesan, whose whereabouts were unknown.

Source reference: no citation

The petitioner alleged that he had complained to the police, but no effective steps had been taken to trace his father.

Source reference: no citation

The police submitted that an earlier “Man Missing” case had been closed after Murugesan appeared during the enquiry, that a non-bailable warrant was pending against him in connection with maintenance, and that efforts to trace him were continuing.

Source reference: p. 2–4

The Court found that the petition concerned a missing person, with no allegation establishing unlawful detention.

Source reference: p. 5
02

Issues

Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable where the person is missing but no unlawful detention is shown.

Source reference: p. 5

Whether the police should be directed to continue efforts to trace the missing person and inform the petitioner of the outcome.

Source reference: p. 5–6
03

Law Applied

Unlawful detention is a sine qua non for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus; a petition concerning a person who is merely missing, without an allegation or indication of unlawful detention, is not maintainable.

Source reference: p. 5

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in H.C.P.(MD) Nos. 793 and 658 of 2025, which referred to Simmi Bai v. Shrimaan Police Mahanirishak Mahodaya (2025 SCC OnLine MP 893), Kalaiarasi v. State (order dated 7 May 2018 in H.C.P. No. 2191 of 2017), and K. Sukumari v. The Superintendent of Police (order dated 18 September 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 19255 of 2016).

Source reference: p. 5
04

Reasoning

The petitioner’s account and the police’s submissions disclosed that Murugesan’s whereabouts were unknown, but did not establish that he was being unlawfully detained.

Source reference: p. 4–6

Because unlawful detention is necessary for habeas corpus relief, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable.

Source reference: p. 4–6

Nevertheless, given that the police investigation remained ongoing, it directed the police to continue the tracing efforts in accordance with K. Sukumari.

Source reference: p. 4–6
05

Holding

The Court closed the habeas corpus petition, finding no basis for habeas corpus relief in the absence of unlawful detention.

It directed the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation and take all necessary steps to trace Murugesan, and to inform the petitioner forthwith if Murugesan was secured or his whereabouts identified.

Source reference: p. 6
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M.AbishekvsThe State of Tamilnadu

Madras High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment