Habeas corpus is not maintainable for missing persons pending investigation without prima facie proof of illegal detention.

The petitioner, a 21-year-old student represented by his father, filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was under the illegal private detention of Respondent No. 6, Dr. C.V. Raman University.

The petitioner sought his release, an investigation by the CBI or CID, and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for mental harassment.

The State counsel opposed the maintainability of the petition, submitting that a missing person report had already been registered based on the petitioner's complaint and that an investigation by the competent police authorities was currently underway.

Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable when a missing person report has been registered and an investigation is actively being conducted by the police.

The court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1973) 2 SCC 674, which held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only where there is a prima facie case of illegal detention.

Extraordinary jurisdiction should not be invoked when the matter falls squarely within the domain of investigating agencies and no material exists to suggest unlawful detention.

The court reasoned that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not required at this stage because the competent police authorities have already initiated an investigation following the registration of a missing report.

The bench observed that the petitioner failed to provide any material or evidence indicating that the missing individual was in actual unlawful detention.

By applying the Kanu Sanyal principle, the court determined that because the matter was already under police investigation pursuant to the missing report, and because there was no prima facie evidence of illegal confinement, the writ petition lacked the necessary legal foundation for maintainability.

The petition was dismissed; however, the court granted the petitioner liberty to take recourse to law through other appropriate legal channels.