Habeas corpus petition is not maintainable for a corpus who is absconding to evade criminal prosecution.

The petitioner, Omwati, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that her son, Manish (the corpus), was being illegally detained by his wife (respondent no. 7) and her relatives.

The petitioner cited an F.I.R. lodged in Dholpur, Rajasthan, against the wife’s relatives for alleged abduction.

The State (A.G.A.) submitted that the corpus was a named accused in an F.I.R. dated 16.12.2025 lodged by his wife for dowry harassment, cruelty, and sexual assault under the B.N.S. and Dowry Prohibition Act.

Investigations revealed that the corpus was absconding to avoid arrest, a charge sheet had been filed against him and the petitioner, and the police were seeking non-bailable warrants.

1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable when the alleged "corpus" is an absconding accused evading legal process.

2. Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case of "unlawful detention" necessary for the issuance of the writ.

The writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of course and requires a prima facie showing of unlawful detention, as held in Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. [(2007) 10 SCC 190].

"Unlawful detention" is the sine qua non for the writ, as established in Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha [(2020) 14 SCC 161].

Habeas corpus petitions are not maintainable for untraceable persons or absconding accused persons seeking to evade arrest, as per Satendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of UP [2011 SCC OnLine All 4084], Rajamani v. Superintendent of Police [HCP(MD) No.1439 of 2021], and Netram Rawat (Baba) v. State of MP [2024 SCC OnLine MP 8207].

The Court observed that the corpus was not in "illegal detention" but was actively absconding to avoid criminal proceedings initiated by his wife.

Since a charge sheet had already been submitted against the corpus and non-bailable warrants were being procured by the Investigating Officer, the corpus was a fugitive from law.

The petitioner failed to meet the threshold of proving unauthorized confinement by private respondents.

The petition was an attempt to misuse the judicial process where the "missing" person is actually an accused evading the police.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as no illegal detention was established and there were no grounds for interference.