Habeas Corpus is not maintainable for missing persons absent evidence of illegal detention.

The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the recovery of his 14-year-old son, who went missing on October 11, 2025.

The minor had gone to the Son River with friends and reportedly drowned while performing stunts near the riverbank.

Despite extensive search operations conducted by the police, the SDRF, and local divers over several days, the body was not recovered.

The petitioner alleged that the police investigation was inadequate and expressed apprehension of foul play, seeking the court's intervention to produce the minor.

The State countered that sincere efforts—including rewards, gazette notifications, and witness interviews—were made, but no evidence of illegal detention existed.

1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be issued for a missing person in the absence of evidence regarding illegal or unlawful detention.

2. Whether the investigation and search operations conducted by the state authorities were sufficient to preclude judicial intervention under Article 226.

The court applied the principles governing the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

The essential prerequisite for such a writ is the existence of "illegal or unlawful detention".

The court relied on the doctrine that mere non-tracing of a missing person by investigative agencies does not automatically provide a ground for invoking habeas corpus jurisdiction.

The Court examined the status reports and determined that the police initiated prompt and continuous search efforts immediately after the disappearance.

The reasoning centered on the fact that multiple witnesses, including the minor's friends and an independent observer, consistently corroborated an accidental drowning theory rather than abduction or detention.

The Court found that the State had fulfilled its procedural duties by involving specialized rescue teams (SDRF), announcing rewards, and issuing notifications.

Since the petitioner failed to place any material on record suggesting the minor was being held against his will by a specific party, the Court concluded that the legal threshold for "illegal detention" was not met.

The Court took on record the State's commitment to intensify future search operations and clarified that the dismissal does not preclude authorities from continuing their investigation.