Provash Bera v. The State of Telangana & Ors.

seir"triirt, Hyderibad The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State' The Deputy commissioner of Police, South zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State The Assistant commissioner of Police, charminar, Hyderabad' Telangana State The Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad' Telangana State Pradeep vallabh, s/o srimanth vallabh, Aged about 29 vears' occ' Gold Worke r, R/o Kuthtila"G-Jii i Cliirri H;;''Hi,a; ta b'd, Te [a no ana State N ative of Dout Chowk, Ghatal P.S. Fate-hprttsiitfirrfif, eiby'lay,?aschim Midnrpw District, West Bengal State' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased toto issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRtT oF HABEAUS coRpUS declaring the action of the Respondent No'S not tracing out the Respondent No.6 Pradeep Vallabh S/o Srimanth Vallabh' Aged about 29 years, Occ. Gold Worker, R/o Kuththa Galli' Gulzar Houz' Hyderabad' Telangana State Native of Doul Chowk' Ghatal P S Fatehpur Prathamlik' Bidyalay, Paschirn t\ilidnapur District' West Bengal State' inspite of FIR No.16/2026 dated 16 01'2026' as illegal' arbitrary and against the principles of natural iustice anrl in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia' besides violation of this Hon'ble Court directions and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 to trace out the Respondent No 6 Pradeep Vallabh S/o Srimanth Vallabh, Aged abrut 29 years' Occ Gold Worker' R/o Kuththa Galli' Gulzar Houz' Hyderabad, Telangana State Native of Doul Chowk' Ghatal P S' Fatehpur Prathamlik, Bidyalay, Paschim Midnapur District' West Bengal State and produce him before this Hon'ble Court' IA NO: 1 oF 202 0 petition u,rder section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct the Responden- No 5 to trace out the Respondent No 6 Pradeep Vallabh S/o Srimanth Vallahh, Aged about 29 years' Occ Gold Worker' R/o Kuththa Galli' Gulzar Houz, llyderabad, Telangana State Native of Doul Chowk' Ghatai P S' Fatehpur Prathilmlik, Bidvalay Paschim Midnapur District' West Bengal State and produce him before this Hon'ble Court' pending disposal of main Writ Petition' CoUNSCi fOT thE PCtitiONCT: SRI SYED MUSAB RAHIM HASHMI Counsel for the Respondents 1 To 5: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPECIAL GP Counsel for thre ResPondent No 6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION 2957 0F 20.26 DATEz o12.02.2o.26 Between: Provash Bera And Petitioner The State of Telangana represented by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. ...Respondents Mr.Syed Musab Rahim Hashmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. I to 5. ORDER: (Per Hon'lcle Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

#1. The prayer in the writ petition would make it clear that the writ petition has been filed for Writ of Habeas Corpus against the action of the respondent No.S/SHO, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad, in failing to trace the respondent No.6. The prayer mentions an FIR lodged by the petitioner on 1\

16.01.2026. 2 ' c :1 -

#2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places an F.R and its contents to urge that the respondent No.6 was an r:mployee in the petitioner's gold shop at Kuthagalli Gulzar House. On i4.O1.2026, the petitioner discovered that the :-espondent No.6 had left the shop without leaving any detaLls regarding his whereabouts.

#3. Vre note that the FlR/complaint dated 16.01.2026 does not allege any wrong doing on the part of the respondent No.6, other than the fact, that the respondent No.6 left the petil.ioner's employment and has since remained unrosponsive to the petitioner's calls/messages. 4- Il is a well-settled principle, fortified by several decisions incl'rding the decision passed by this Court (sitting in diffr:rent combination) in W.P.No.30873 of 2024, dated

26.03.2025 where the Court reinforced that a petition seel<ing for issuance o[ Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be entr:rtained to trace out a missing person. The Court relied on several other decisions of the High Courts including in Sulochana Bai V. State of M.P.l, Seluaraj V. State2, Jagmati ' lzoos;2 Mpt{T 233 2lzotay: Mad LJ (Cri) 7t2 t--7 .1 J Sahu V. State of Chhattisgarhs and lfimananda Biswal V- State of Odishaa, all of which held that illegal detention or wrongful confinement is a condition precedent for invoking \ the extraordinary jurisdiction. In the absence of a prima facie case or specific allegation of illegal restraint, by a particular person or authority, missing person cases must be registered under the provisions of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and pursued through ordinary criminal investigation under The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 rather than through extraordinary constitutional rcmedies. Consequently, it is held that a writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable in the case of a missing person where no illegal detention is established.

#5. Considering the settled legal position and the nature of the prayer in the writ petition, which seeks only to trace out the respondent No.6, we are of the firm view that the Writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. The petitioner has other statutory remedies available to him under law. ' zozz ScC online Chandigarh 737 o zoz: Scc onlinc Orissa 5628 4 \e -r

#6. w.P.No.2957 of 2026, along with all connected ap1>lications, is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. Thr:re shall be no order as to costs. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR ASS /,TRUE COPY/ TION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRl. SYED IVIUSAB RAHIM HASHtvll' Advocate' 2 Two CCs t,t SPECIAL GP , High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad at Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CD C,rpies 3 DAN BS dJ- t II ! , *ou$ HIGH COURIT DATED:021(1212026 ORDER WP.No.29!i7 o12026 t * 'iH 2 B * .-sPATC DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS |'r rg\r\*'