Patna High Court
Rampreet GoswamiversusThe State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-800015
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable as there is no prima facie case of illegal confinement.
Summary
The petitioner, Rampreet Goswami, filed a criminal writ petition alleging that his daughter, Manisha Kumari, had gone missing after leaving home voluntarily to pursue education, and that no FIR had been registered. He sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming unlawful detention by the state. The Court examined whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable when the alleged detenue has voluntarily disappeared and there is no evidence of illegal confinement. Citing Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. and Home Secretary (Prison) & Others v. H. Nilofer Nisha, the Court held that the writ is only available where there is prima facie proof of unlawful detention. Since the daughter is a major who left of her own free will and no detention is shown, the petition was dismissed. The Court ordered the dismissal of the writ petition and any pending applications.
Issues considered
- Is a writ of habeas corpus maintainable when the alleged detenue has voluntarily left home and there is no evidence of illegal or unlawful detention?
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- illegal detention
- voluntary disappearance
- criminal writ
- Article 21
- constitutional law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.197 of 2026
======================================================
Rampreet Goswami, S/o Nemdhari Goswami, Aged about 52 years, Resident
of Gram Mocharim, Post Mocharim, Mosa Mor, Bodhgaya, P.S.- Bodhgaya,
District- Gaya, Bihar 824231
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna-800015 Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Police Headquarters, Bailey Road,
Patna- 800001 Bihar
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya, District- Collectorate, Gaya, Bihar Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya, Office at District Police Headquarters,
Gaya, Bihar Bihar
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Bodhgaya, P.S. Bodhgaya, District-
Gaya, Bihar Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachina, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Respondent-State.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.09.2025,
the daughter of the informant (petitioner), namely Manisha
Kumari, had gone to the market to purchase vegetables but did
not return home thereafter. The informant attempted to contact
her on her mobile phone, which was found switched off. Despite
making diligent efforts to search her whereabouts, she could not
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.197 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/4
be traced. Upon searching her room, the informant discovered a
letter purportedly written by her, wherein she stated that she had
left the house of her own free will for the purpose of pursuing
her further education. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a
written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station,
Bodhgaya (Annexure – 1) regarding the alleged occurrence.
However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that no FIR has
been registered in connection with respect to the said complaint
till date.
3. Upon hearing the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and perusal of the entire materials available on the
record, the limited issue that arises for consideration is that
Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable when the
alleged detenue has voluntarily left her home, and there is
nothing on record to show her illegal/ unlawful detention.
4. The writ of Habeas Corpus lies only in those cases
where a person has been illegally detained by the state
authorities or an individual. The petitioner has to, prima facie,
show a case of illegal confinement. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. reported in (2007) 10
SCC 190 has observed as under:
“7. Article 21 of the Constitution having
declared that no person shall be deprived of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.197 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
3/4
life and liberty except in accordance with the
procedure established by law, a machinery was
definitely needed to examine the question of
illegal detention with utmost promptitude. The
writ of habeas corpus is a device of this nature.
Blackstone called it “the great and efficacious
writ in all manner of illegal confinement”. The
writ has been described as a writ of right which
is grantable ex debito justitiae. Though a writ
of right, it is not a writ of course. The applicant
must show a prima facie case of his unlawful
detention. Once, however, he shows such a
cause and the return is not good and sufficient,
he is entitled to this writ as of right.”
5. Further, in the case of Home Secretary (Prison)
and Others v. H. Nilofer Nisha, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 161,
it has been held in para no. 16 that:
“16. .…Even though, the scope may have
expanded, there are certain limitations to this
writ and the most basic of such limitation is
that the Court, before issuing any writ of
habeas corpus must come to the conclusion
that the detenue is under detention without any
authority of law.”
6. Considering the settled position of law and the
complaint given by the petitioner which is annexed as
‘Annexure -1’, it is evident that the daughter of the petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.197 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
4/4
who is a major, has left the house on her own free will. There is
no evidence to suggest that she was subjected to any form of
illegal confinement.
7. Accordingly, the issue framed is answered in
negative. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find
no merit in the present criminal writ petition, and the same
stands dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Ibrar/-
U
Checking your session…