Habeas Corpus is not maintainable when a missing person is residing with another of their free will.

The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Sahu, filed a criminal writ petition seeking the production and recovery of his daughter (the detenu), Ananya Sahu, alleging she was in the illegal custody of Respondent No. 7 in Palwal, Haryana.

The petitioner had previously filed a Habeas Corpus petition (WPHC No. 10/2026), which was dismissed as not maintainable because a missing person report had already been lodged with the police.

The State/Respondents submitted that an inquiry was conducted, a dastyabi panchnama was prepared on 23.12.2025, and the victim’s statement was recorded via WhatsApp video call.

In her statement, the detenu declared she was living with Respondent No. 7 of her own free will.

1. Whether the detenu is in illegal confinement, necessitating the issuance of a writ for her production and liberty.

2. Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when a missing person report is already under active inquiry and the detenu has expressed her consent.

The Court applied the principles governing the issuance of high prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically relating to illegal detention.

The court relied on the evidentiary value of statements made by an adult detenu regarding their autonomy and "free will."

Writ jurisdiction for production of a person is not attracted when the "detention" is not involuntary or illegal, particularly when statutory police inquiries (missing person reports) are already in progress.

The Court examined the State’s status report which detailed the investigation into the petitioner’s missing person report.

It noted that the police had verified the detenu's location in Palwal, Haryana, and recorded her statement in the presence of her uncle, Naresh Kumar Sahu.

The Court found the detenu’s statement—communicated via video call—to be pivotal, as she explicitly stated she was residing with Respondent No. 7 by choice.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the essential ingredient of "illegal confinement" required for a writ of this nature was absent.

Since the daughter was not being held against her will, the Court found no legal justification to interfere with her liberty or order her return to the petitioner’s guardianship.

The Court declined to grant the prayers for recovery or protection but left it open for the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies before a court of competent jurisdiction.