Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable for tracing missing persons absent prima facie proof of illegal detention.

The petitioner, Kanchan Devi, filed a writ petition seeking proper investigation and the recovery of her 13-year-old daughter, who was kidnapped on January 2, 2024 (Danapur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2024).

Although a charge-sheet had been submitted and Sessions Trial No. 1991 of 2025 was pending, the victim remained unrecovered.

The State contended that despite best efforts, the girl could not be traced.

The petitioner argued that crucial investigative steps for recovery remained unexhausted.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained for the recovery of a missing person when an alternative statutory remedy exists under the Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S.

2. Whether the lack of specific allegations of "illegal detention" renders a writ of Habeas Corpus or similar extraordinary relief maintainable for a missing person.

The court primarily applied Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 100 of the B.N.S.S.), which empowers a Magistrate to issue search warrants for persons wrongfully confined.

The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, while not an absolute bar to Article 226, serves as a self-imposed restriction on the High Court's discretion (Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer).

Writ jurisdiction should generally be reserved for fundamental rights violations, natural justice breaches, or jurisdictional errors (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks).

"Missing person" cases do not equate to "illegal detention" required for Habeas Corpus (Selvaraj v. State).

The court reasoned that search and recovery are integral parts of investigation, and the Jurisdictional Magistrate is legally equipped to monitor these efforts and issue search warrants.

By surveying precedents from various High Courts (Madras, Gauhati, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan), the court established that a "missing person" case must be dealt with under regular penal provisions and the Cr.P.C. rather than through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, unless "illegal detention" by the State or a specific individual is prima facie established.

The court observed that since the trial was already underway in the Sessions Court, the petitioner had a more effective and direct remedy: moving the Jurisdictional Magistrate to monitor further investigation specifically for recovery.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for further investigation before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, who is "duty bound" to pass appropriate orders and monitor recovery efforts.