Habeas corpus is not maintainable where investigation into a missing person report is already in progress.

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

The petitioner sought his release, a direction for the CBI or CID to investigate the case, and compensation of ₹5,00,000 for mental harassment.

The State countered that, based on the petitioner's complaint, a missing person report had already been registered and a police investigation was currently underway.

1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable when a missing person report has been registered and is being actively investigated by competent authorities.

2. Whether the court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant relief that falls within the domain of investigating agencies.

The Court applied the jurisdictional principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the writ of habeas corpus.

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

The court further applied the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory investigation via an FIR or missing report is already in progress.

The Court reasoned that since the competent police authorities had already registered a missing person report and the investigation was active, the relief sought by the petitioner fell squarely within the functional domain of the investigating agency.

In evaluating the maintainability of the writ, the Court noted the absence of any material evidence indicating that the individual was under "unlawful detention".

Applying the Kanu Sanyal ratio, the Court determined that the high prerogative writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a police investigation into a missing person unless illegal confinement is prima facie established.

Consequently, the Court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue alternative legal recourses as provided by law.