Nenauath Bujji v. State of Telanganat

.....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 to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to trace and produce the Detenue 'Mrs Panajal Sharnya'before this Honourable Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.R.VIJAY Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following ORDER I II ==-/ t THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MADHUSUDHAN RAO BOBBILI RAMAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.3487 OF 20.25 Mr. K.R. VUay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Govemment Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents. ORDER The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directed against the respondent No.6, the Station House Officer, Secunderabad to produce one Mrs.Panajal Sharnya, who is the wife of the petitioner.

2. [,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detenue is presently with a third person and that the respondents have not shown any interest to find the detenue. The petitioner states that there is a threat to the detenue's life and urgent orders are called for.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State of Telangana/ respondent Nos. 1 to 6 places written instructions containing the statement of the detenue, Smt. Nalla Nagarani. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the petitioner's wife's actual name is Nalla Nagarani and this is the name mentioned in her Aadhar Card.

4. We have perused the statement given to the lady Police Constable on 21.11.2024. The detenue has stated that the petitioner used to physically abuse the detenue on one pretext or the other including suspecting her character. The statement of the detenue records that on \ 2

20.11 .2024 she received a call from Lallaguda Police Station and informed the Police that she left home of her own volition as she was facing life threat from her husband. The detenue states that the petitioner/her husband used to physically abuse her including with acid on suspecting the detenue to be in a relationship with another person. The detenue recorded her staternent in the Padmanabam Police Station, Vishakapatnam City, Andhra Pradesh.

5. The Writ of Habeas Corpus originated in Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence and is an extraordinar5z remedy where a person is entitled to institute proceedings for the purpose of liberating another from illegal imprisonment on the applicant showing cause that the applicant is legally entitled to the custody of tfre detenu. The Writ entails a command to the person detaining another to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, that is to "have t1 e bod/. By a-ll counts, it is the most powerful safeguard against arbitrary acts of the executive or even of private individuals transgressing personal liberty: Nenauath Bujji Vs. State of Telanganat.

6. A Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be issued when a detention or imprisonment is without authority of law i.e., when the person is under illegal detention. With the expansion of the scope of Habeas Corpus, the Writ is often used against a spouse who has been illegally detained by his/her parents or in cases of custody of a child. In such cases, the Court must come to tJ:e conclusion that the person is under detention without authority of I Criminal Appeal.Nos. 1738 -39 of 2O24 I / -- - -_,- ---:- =,/ 3 I t law: Home Secretary Vs. H Nilofer Nisha2 ' For instance in a child custody matter the ordinarlz remedy is under The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or The Guardians and Wards Act, 189o as tlre case may be: Tejo.suini Gaud Vs. Shekar Jagdish Prasod Teutari3 ' It is importart to sound a word of caution with regard to the cases where 7. missing men and women zrre sought to be produced before the Court through this mechanism. The more appropriate course of action in such cases would be to register a "Missing Person" case in the jurisdictional police station or appropriate proceedings for tracing the missing person in the manner provided under The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' These cases should be dealt by the competent Court of law without invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of Constitutiona-l Courts: Seluaraj Vsgatd '

8. Considering the width of the power of a Writ Court to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus on such a sovereign and transcendent authority' the Courts must be circumspect where the petitioner seeks to invoke this extraordinarSz remedy in matters where either the act of disappearance is voluntar5r or where the detention sati.sfies due process' The reach of the power conferred on the Court cannot be run down by seeking directions at random where tlte law has already charted a course to secure justice' g. Considering the instructions and the statement' we do not hnd any reason to keep the writ petition is pending' '(zozo) ta scc ror .r (2o19) 7 SCC 42 " (zore) I Mad u (cri) 712 / 4 io. W.P.No.3487 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. I Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are dismissed. There shali be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SDI T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To'- 1. T*o CC,s to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad. (OUT) z. oir"-cd to snt x.ir.vtlnv, Advocate IoPUC] 3. Two CD Copies SA $ C.C.'I'ODAY 1rre STA r€ + 12 rtB 2[25 l) * DEsP.A"t HIGH COURT DATED:1 010212025 ORDER WP.No.3487 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. G)un'^ W