The High Court · 2025

Order

(Pet The Hon'bte Justrce Moushumi Bhanacharyal

1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the action of the State respondents in illegally detaining the alleged detenues in the respondent No.6/State Homc and a direction to the State Home to produce the alleged detenues in the Court aIId to set the detenues free.

2. The peritioner claims to be a close friend of the detenues and claims to knou the detenues for seven years having lived with them in the Child Care Institution, Prajwala (an organization registered under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) Area Public Societies Registration Act) (?rajwala') arrd the State Homc. The detenues are said to be adults (19 yea-rs old). -l a MB,J&GPK,J w-P.No.266AS of 2O2S

3. The petitioner, Kamsani Anjali, was released lr )m the respondent No.6/State Home pursuant to an order dated 13.08.2 )25 passed by this Court in W.p.No.23l Lg of 2025. The petitioner clain : that the detenues "begged" the petitioner for their release and recluest:: I the petitioner to engage a lawyer to take up their case.

4. The respondent Nos. I the respondent No.7. to 6 are the State rcspor ( ents. prajwala is

5. Learned counser appearing for the petitioner ;ubmits that the detenues are presently in illegat detention in the res,r:,rdent No.6/State Home. Counsel submits that both thc dctenues are:r( r lts and the State does not have any right to keep them in (hc State t.r me against their wishes. Counsel submits that the dctcnucs zlre nor rr ow(:d to lead an independent life or engage counscl to rcprcscnt th(.i . (:ase arrd hence intend to return to their respective families. h:rvc treen r etained without

6. Counsel submits that the detenucs any legal sanction in a State Hon.rc u,hich is con trrtrr to The Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Childrcn) Act. 20 I 5 (.r.r : .JJ Act,). It is also submitted that the responderlt No.7/prtrjwala lack: 1py authority to qeake any submissions since it is not thc Dctaining A. r rorilv. counsel I 4 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.t&..266ai of 2025 places primacy on the wish of the detenues which is to be reunited with their families. 7 . The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6/State places several documents to show that the release of the detenues would not be in their best interest since both the detenues were rescued on i7-08.2O18 by the Yadagirigutta Police as part of human trafficking rescue operation ald were victims of human tralfrcking. It is stated that the Child Welfare Committee (CWCI, Nalgonda tralsferred the case of the detenues (case bearing No.4O7l2019, dated

17.08.2018) to the CWC, Ranga Reddy which further referred the detenues to Prajwala Astha Nivas Child Care Institution for protection and rehabilitation of the detenues. The CWC, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District revic"r'ed the case of the detenues on

13.02.2024 and 22.O5.2024 and passed ordcrs transferring the detenues from Prajwala to the State Home, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad' The detenues submitted u'rittcn reprcsentations on 2l'Oa'2025 requesting their release and being returned to their families. The special Government Pleader expresses concern on the alleged detenues being re-victimised in the trafficking racket in Yadagirigutta after their release' v I i 5 1fr8,J & GPK.J W.P-tIo.266As of 2Ois

8. -i recessary party to respondent No.7/ nsel submits that ,ioner lacks locus Petition. Counsel raflicking herself,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Prajwala submits ttrat prajwala was impleaded as a the Writ petition by the order dated i0.O9.202S. Ct,r the Writ petition is not maintainable since the pe.r stnndi and necessarJr bona fid.es to maintain the Wri. submits that the petitioner having been rescued liom may lack the capacit5r to represent the detenues. lt is s detenues are housed in the State Home, Madhura Nap€ valid orders passed by the cwc under the provisions that the detenues have a statutory remedy avariit chalrenging the orders passed by the cwc, yadagiri Brr under the provisions of the JJ Act as w.ell as l_trr: (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITp Act,). Counsel subrnir: that both the detenues are victims and material witnesses in tralflcl ing ancl POCSO cases which are pending trial and prematurc releasc \r.,) lld expose them to threats from traflickers and accused persons. )f the JJ Act and rlc to them for Imrnoral Traffic rvanagiri District r pursuant to the u bmitted that the 9 We have considered the submissions made on bclri ll of the parties including on Ie question of and the material placed before us marntainability of the present writ petition for a writ of I [, beas corpus a 6 frB,J & GPX,J w.P.I\b.266A5 of 2O2s

10. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for producing the person (corpus) by freeing him/her from iltegal detention. Habeas Corpus stems from tl.e court finding that the detention of the person is not authorized by law and the normal process of the criminal justice system needs to be suitably moulded in order to protect the personal liberty of the detenu. However, the court must be satished of the credentials of the petitioner as well as the detenu being kept in itlegal detention' There may be several forms of detention inctuding by warring parents or in cases of marital confinement. It is in this context that the undisputed facts in the present case assume imPortancc-

11. We propose to deal with the issues raised on behalf of the parties under separate heads. Is the Writ Petition Maintainable? (a) Laans Standi of the Petitio ner to marntar n the Writ Petition |2.Thewritaffrdavitf.rledbythepetitionercontainsthefollowing Statements. The relevant lines have becn rcproduced from the writ affrdavit. (? $ 7

3. I know the detenues Kamsali purna and l.: Amrnulu as we Iived together for about sevcr in the child care institution prajwala and latcr Respondent No.6 Home. Both of t1.em ale .l me by a year. Kamsani purna studied until g,r and Kamsarri Ammulu has completed hcr class. Like me they were a.lso "rescued, in a r 2Ol8 at Yadagirigutta. Myself and the rwo dcr are close friends and we have cared for eacl. during these long years of d.etention. IVB,J & GPK.J ta.P. i!/e,.266&s ol2o;s at the ler to ud in n ues )ther

4. I state tlat I was released from detention [rr r I thr Respondent No.6 Home by way of Order .f rhrs Honble Court vide Wp No.23I l8/2O2S dared t: 08. 2025. I have enclosed the by this Hon,ble cot*t. ."T: ::t::1 ;..:: present before this Honble Court, Kamsani l\ rn:r and Kamsani Ammulu begged me to speak , rl ou t their release. They asked me to request a laurr _ lo lake up their case too., ""r': l3 The prayer in the Writ petition 'lt is therefore prayed that this Honble Court m.rr lrr: pleased to issue an order, direction or writ in hc nature of writ of habeas corpus declaring thar ht, action of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 in illt,1,i ly detaining the detenues Kamsani puma & Kanr:r ni Ammulu aged 19 Respondent No.6 Home uncon stitutional and further direct the Responrl ,rr respectively ir.r as unlawful I l(l a: 8 @r,l & oPKr,t W.P.No.255aS of 20515 No.6 to forthwith produce them before this Honble Court and set them free, artd pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit ard proper in the circumstances of the case.'

14. The above paragraphs show that the petitioner claims to be a friend of the detenues, K.Purna and K.Ammulu, by dint of being rescued as a group in a raid in 2018 at Yadagirigutta. It is settled that while a Writ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus may be {iled by a 'next friend', the petitioner must establish his/ her bona fides pertaining to the claimed status: K. Vs. State of Keralot and Ram Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Delhi2. f5. In the present case, the petitioner's only claim to friendship with the detenues is that they were all part of thc rescucd group as victims of human tralficking. The petitioner herself was also rcscucd under the provisions of The Immoral Traflic (Prevcntion) Act, 1956 ('lTP Act) and was recently released from the State l{omc pursuant to an order passed by this Court on I3.Oa.2O25 in W.P.No.23l l8 of 2O25. The very fact that the petitioner was part of the group of girls u'ho rvcre rescued by the police .in 2018 and was thereaJter sent to the carc of CWC, Nalgonda, | 2024 S,CC OnLine SC 351 .z (vol XVIII (2) ILR 853) 9 B,J & GPK,J 7 P.No.266as oI2O2S Ranga Reddy and referred to Prajwala for rehabili _r tion. calls into question not only of the petitioner's locus but also her : rpacity to act as a responsible 'next friend' of the detenues. The peli ionr:r's claim of friendship is further vexed by the fact that none of tl-re representations given by the detenues to the State Home for being :,turned to their families mention the petitioner. The representatior I given byr the detenues in fact mentions their parents.

16. The wrrt afhdavit also does not contain any statr ncnt to suggest that the pctitioner seeks release of the alleged detenut.: for thcir social rehabilitation or rvelfare. In this context, it is necessar-r to bc,ar in mind that the present writ Petition is not a Public Interest Litil ation u hcre the Court is persuaded to address certain larger concerns f 3rtaining to the Statc l{omcs or thc CWCs.

17. The requirement of the Court to tread cautiously n thc ma tt('r of loarc standi u'here the prayer for production of the detcr ue is in tintatr:lv concerned with the liberty and welfare of the detenue. fht: pct iti()ncr's bona fides must be beyond doubt in such cases. A per ;on can file thc Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus as hext friend, only if t l- is incapable of approaching the Court himself/ I constraining factors such as incapacit5r or illegal restrain t : affectccl party :rsclf due to A 'ncxl friend' 10 MB,J & GPK,J w.P.I,b.266AS of 2O25 will be incapable of maintaining a Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus if the family is capable of accessing the Courts: Ki-shore Samrite Vs. State of U.P.3

18. The developments subsequent to the petitioner's release by the order of the Court ot 13.08.2025 confuses the picture further. The Special Government Pleader has produced the documents which revea.l that although the petitioner got admission at Durgabai Deshmukh Polytechnic College at Hyderabad, the petitioner refused to attend the college on the plea of distance ald other logistical problems. Hence, the petitioner's credentials as a responsible friend who is concerned about the future of the detenues does not inspire confidence o[ Lhe Court.

19. The unsatisfred gaps in the petitioner's stand with regard to the petitioner being a concerned next friend of the dctenues is made even more suspicious by ttre material placed by the lcarned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 6/State. The material may be summarized by the following. (0 A letter dated 21.09.2025 was addressed by the Station House Officer, Yadagirigutta Police Station. to the Chairperson, CWC, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri '*'hich '1zora1 z scc:ss l1 MB,J & GPK,J ,.1{o.266as oJ 2o2s gt. states that the Station House Ofhcer, Yada6j igutta Police Station conducted an enquiry with regarc to the relatives of Kamsani Purna (the detenue No. 1) was found that Kamsani Purna's mother, a re :;i ald it lent of Medak District, passed away in 2O10. (i1) Kamsani Purna submitted a requisition to tL( CWC, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri ctaiming tl:at Pavani a-t I Raju are her 'pruni' and 'babai' i.e., aunt and unclt: (aun t's husband). However, upon verification, it we t that Pavani and Raju are not hu sband ar-t Moreov<'r. Kamsani Buchamma, wife of Rajrt I wife. is the sister ol- Pavani and Kamsani Buchamma was i rvolved in prostitution activities along with Kamsani Pt rna. (iii) Kamsani Purna (the detenue No. 1) has state' in the letter dated 19.O9.2025 that K'Raju and K.Per ani are her [athcr and younger sister, respectively. (iu) A DNA test confirmed that Kamsani Buchamn ] is not biologicalll related to Kamsani Purna. E t2 MB,J & GPK,J w.P.I,b.256as ol 2O2s (") The requisition given by Kamsani purna does not mention the petitioner/Kamsani Anjali either as a friend or otherwise. ("i) Kamsani Ammulu (the detenue No.2) had also given a letter dated I9.O9.2O25 stating that K.Kiran and K. Revathi are uncle and aunt who are residing rn Yadagirigutta. In the letter, Kamsani Ammulu writes that she is a widow and does not have parents and wants to be sent to K.Kiran, her uncle,s house. (vii) None of the detenues submitted any information with regard to their relatives /tarrnLy or next kin.

20. The material placed above does not clariff the petitioner,s claim of being a concerned friend of the detenues. In fact, the material placed contradicrs the petitioner's claim in terms of being acknou,ledged as being a friend or a go-to person of tlte detenues.

21. The High Court should exercise self_imposed limits to its powcrs in a Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus. ^Although a constitutional protection is given to every detenue for making a representation to the appropritate authority against detenue under Arlicle 22 (51 of the Constitution of 13 MB,J & GPI<,J \t P.'1Io.26685 ol2o25 India, the petitioner must show a pima facie case of uIr awful detention' The Court must also be mindful of an attempt made ol . the part of the petitioner to deflect the course of justice by letting loc;e red herrings': Union of India u. Paul Manickantt.

22. Therefore, a Writ as a matter of right can only ollow where the petitioner has established a case, even pima facie, ol llegal detention; which brings us to the next question. (bl Are the Detenues under lllegal Detention?

23. It is undisputed that both the detenues are lo,i ;ed in the State Home, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad where they were ; Iaced aJter their rescue from human traft'icking by the Yadagirip -rtta Police on

17.08.2018. The detenues u'ere put in the care of CWO Nalgonda which transferred the case (No.407 of 2O19) to the CWC, .langa Reddy on

17.O8.2O18. The CWC, Ranga Reddy thereafter referrec the detenues to Praj wala. On l3.O2.2O24, the CWC, Yadadri Bhuvan a 3iri reviewed the case of the detenues and passed orders for their trall;: 3r from Prajwala to the State Home, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad. o zoo: (a) scc laz t4 MB,J & GPK,J w.P.I\b.266As oJ 2O25

24. The detenues . submitted written representations on 21'08'2025 requesting for their release so as to enable them to join their parents' TheWomenandChildWelfareOfficer,stateHome,HyderabadSentan email to the District welfare oflicer and tl.e chairperson (wD & CWDJ, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri on' 22.08.2025 for considering the alleged detenues' request and issuing necessary orders' On 26 'O8 '2025' the District Welfare Ofhcer, Women, Cfrild. Oisable & Senior Citizens Weifare Officer wrote to the Commissioner, Worr-'en and Child V/elfare Departmen[ for issu ing necessary orders.

25. The above narration would make it clear that the detenues are housed in the State Home pursuant to the orders passed by the CWC al1d the District welfare ofhcer, wD & CWD, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri. [t is undisputed that the order for keeping the detenues in the care and protection of the State Home was passed within the scheme of the JJ Act- Therefore, we zrre unable to agree rrith ttre contention that the detcnues are in illegal detention. Needless to say, 'detention' becomes 'illegal' where it is made contrary to law or in the absence of any law ln essence, the detention of the detenue cannot be said to be illegal The petitioner's argument that the illegality arises. out of the detenues attaining majority is also flawed. We will discuss this issue in the later part of the order. \,,.4 ---_-/.= I5 AB,J&GPN.J u .P.rfr,266as ol2ois 26' It is necessar5z to crarifu the legar position in this rr for a Writ of Habeas Corpus lies against illegal detcr *cretary @rison) Vs. H. Nilofer 1[15ftas, the Supreme Cc convicts serving sentences pursuant to the orders passe Courts cannot be termed as illegal detention. Itlegal dettr qua non for maintainability of a Writ of Habeas Cor 1 Diugarani Vs. The State of Telanganaa. Rachna Vs. SIa I specifically with a case of the victim bcing sent to Wo. Home/ Nari Niketan by the cwc appointed under secti.; Act. The Allahabad High Court held rhat the Writ p,r maintainable against the orclers passcrl bv a Judicial M;r CWC under the provisions ot thc ,r.J Act. A similar vierr Omkar Vs. State of U.p. I and Shifu (a: Manrtu (a: Shtfa Mal U.P.s, where the petitioner soughr custod.v of the detrr detained in a protection Home pursuant to the order passt:r under section 37(1)(c) of rhe JJ Act_ The Court held that dc the order of tl-re CWC would not warrant a Writ of Habeas Madhya pradesh High Court in Vatsalyapuram Jain WeIJar gard. A petition tion. In Home rrt opined that 1 by competent tion is the srne us: Rasamnlla z of U.P.z deaht aen Protection 27 of the JJ ition was not jstrate or the was tal<en in k Vs. State of ue who was by the CWC ention under )orpus. The z Societg Vs. ;rr'#l.li:i?Tme court c:,scs 16l 7 2021 SCC OnLine A 2 t l 2023: AHC: 10S954 - 2020 SCC OnLine A 2381 "" 16 AB,J & GPK'J W.P.No.26685 oJ 2O25 TlestoteofMad,haaPradeshtoalsoopinedt}rataWritPetitionfor Habeas Corpus is not maintainable to challenge the statutory orders of detention passed by the CWC or the jurisdictional Magistrate' (c) Is an Alternative Statutory Remedy available to the Petitioner?

27. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act' 2O15' sets out a comprehensive set of rigfuts and protections for a child/juvenile within the mechanism and infrastructure provided by the State towards realization of the juvenile's rights' The JJ Act also provides for a range of statutory bodies for the care and protection of children set up by the State for addressing the issues faced by a child/juvenile both in terms of care and protection' The Act provides for designated Committees as well as the Juvenile Justice Board to pass orders within the powers conferred by the Act' The orders passed by the Committee or [he E]oard can be challenged before the Children's Court' 2a.SectionloloftheJJActprovidesforAppeals,byanyperson aggrieved by an order of the Board or the Committee' Board' and ,committee' have been defined under sections 2(10) and 2(221 of the JJ Act, respectively. Section lOf (5) provides for appeals from ttre order of to2oz+ 121 rraeu rlo t7 MB,J & GPK,J 9l P.I,b.266as ol2025 the Children's Court before the High Court in accor lance with the procedure prescribed in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

29. Section 1O2 of the JJ Act provides for 'RevisiorL' under which a High Court may call for the records of the proceedings Ir >m a Committee or Board or Children's Court on its own motion or tr an application received in this behalf for the purpose of satisfying of the illegality or propriety of the referenced order.

30. Thus, it is within the right of the detenues in the present case to invoke the remedies provided under the JJ Act for chzr I :nging the order of the CWC or ary other statutory authority in respe(t of directing tJle detenues to be kept in the State Home. The two comll unications from the CWC Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District to the CWC, Rarl a Reddy District on 11.02.2O24 artd, 22.05.2024 from the CWC Yadadr -Bhuvanagiri to the State Home, Hyderabad, are on record. Both thcst :ommunications deal with the tralsfer of the detenues from the CWo Prajwala to the State Home. There is no record before us to show that .l e detenues have cha-llenged these communications under the provisions c I the JJ Act.

31. Courts have opined that an order passed b1' he CWC under section 37(1)(c) of the JJ Act is appealable under sectlor r i01 of the said 18 *.,.*.H!*fif;! Act within the mechanism of the Act: Omkar Vs. State o/ U.P. (supra). Detention of a child in a Children's Home pursuant to the orders passed by the statutory authorities would not amount to illegal detention even if the orders were found to be procedurally - flawed and would hence not be amenable to a Writ of Habeas Corpus: Ractna Vs. State of U.P. (supra). A Writ Court dealing with a petition for Habeas Corpus cannot weigh the evidence of age and other disputed facts: Shifa @ Mannu @ Shifa Malik Vs. Stote o/ U.P (supra).

32. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that a Writ for Habeas Corpus is without any remedial counterpart under the JJ Act which provides for a comprehensive set oI remedies. The Ar ment of '[lleea] Detention' in view of the Detenues beconung Adults.

33. Admittedly, the detenues were minors when they were rescued by the Yadagirigutta Police on 17.O8.2018 from a traJhcking racket. Both the detenues are now 19 years old. However, it does not automatically follow that the child must be released upon attaining majority if the release is not in the best interest of the child. The CWC is fully empowered to take a decision with regard to the further detention or 19 NTB,J A GPK'J w ) .1110.25685 oI 2025 release of the child bearing in mind her safety' welfare a I I rehabilitation as priorities: Giish Kumar Vs. The State of u Pl ' Shtfo ? Mannu (supra) involved a case a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground L lat the detenue is a major and should hence not be kept in Nari Nikrr an against her wishes. The Allahabad High Court held that the W - t could not lie against a lawful order of a competent authority such as rl e CWC' The Dutv of the State vs. the Victim 's Ri ht to script her I uture.

35. The essential argument before the Court is whct 1 lr the detenues claiming to be adults should be set free as against the sir ate's continuing obligation to prevent their re-exploitation The petitiol t r's sole premise is that the detenues should be released forthwith : ince they have attained majority. Leamed counsel reinforces this a r I ument with the detenues right to choose their onward calling: Slulin ' ohan u Asokon K.Ml2.

36. Counsel objects to continued State interfer(:nce i L the absence of clear guidelines for the courts dealing with Habeas ( orpus petitions: Gian Deui u. Superintendent, Nari Nikektn, Dethil3 and b' t' Stote of Kerala (supra). Counsel places emphasis on the personal lib r 't)' of thc alleged " 2022 SCC Online All 1769 u (2018) 16 scc 368 'r (1976) 3 SCC 234 F \! 20 MB,J AL GPK,'I W.P.tto.266a, ol2O25 detenues even if personal liberty of the detenues in the face of illegal detention regardless of the social cost involved in the release of a possible renegade: Smt. Icchu Deui Chorario u' Llnion of Indiara ' Reliance is also placed on Budhodeu Karmoskar u' State of West Bengall s where the Supreme Court issued rehabilitation measures in respect of sex workers which included a direction on the State Governments to do a survey of all Protective Homes so that cases of adult women who are detained against their will can be reviewed and processed for release in a time bound ma-nner.

37. The cases relied on by the petitioner should be placed in context'

38. There is no doubt that a friend or relation of the detenue can apply for a Writ of Habeas Corpus questioning thc detention: Ram Kumar u' District Magistrate (supra) The fact however rcmains whether the person moving a Writ Petition can indeed quatify as a 'friend' of the alleged detenue and whether the petitioner is thc only possible means of approaching the Court in the absence of a next of kin or a relative' In Vinog Kumar u' State of U P 16' the Supreme Court stressed on the incapacity, poverty and disabilities of the affected persons from filing the Writ Petition. ln Hussatnara Khatoon u' Home Secretory ' State of Bilnr' 14 11980) 4 scc 531 ts i2ozzl scc oNLINE SC 7O4 'lzoor) a scc zr+ \ I 2l IIIB,J & GPK,J P-No.266As ol 2025 9t Patnal7, the Supreme Court doubted that expression 'p-, tective custody' as nothing but imprisonment in the context of womerL who have been kept in jail for long periods of time without any fault orL their part. Gian Deul (Supra) was a case where the petitioner herself mir le a request for Court protection but was ordered to be det fned at the Nari Nikethan, Delhi, in tJle background of the petiri.l rer marrying a person against the wishes of her father. Smt. Icchu Dett t 'horaria (Supra) reiterated the settled principle that the detaining r r thority should discharge the burden of establishing that the detention i ; in accordancc with the procedure established by law. The Supremr Cou rt notcd in Shafi.nJahan (supra) that the entire complexion of a crrs ' u,ould change u.here the detention is not illegal. The detenue in thi I ca sr: appt'ared belore the High Court and stated that she was n ) under illegal confinement. It must also be borne in mind that Sha/i,r ,./ahrirr involved an interlaith marriage between the petitioner and thr detr:nue u,hich occu rred against the wishes of the detenue's lit ] cr Budhadeu Karmaskar (supra) was concerned with a Pancl lirr prcvcntron ol trafficking and rehabilitation of sex workers and conditior s conducive for u,orking with dignity. " 1rsao1 t scc e: q c/) A,J & GPK,J w.P.Itb.266aS ol2025

39. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on L2.O}.2O25 in M.S. Patter u- State of NCT of Delhi and Othersr8 is not relevant to the present case since the Supreme Court dealt with the conditions of Beggars' Homes and issued guidelines for improving their condition. The paragraph relied on by the petitioner contains an opinion with regard to policy failure in terms of creating prisonJike spaces by overcrowding, unhygienic conditions, arbitrary or voluntary conhnement denial of medical treatrnent, neglect of mental health needs and restrictions on persondl liberty. Notably, the present Writ Petition is not a Public Interest Litigation with regard to the conditions in State Homes. The Writ Petition seeks release of the two detenues' The Court's Concern

34. The detenues may encounter scveral ground realities upon their release. The detenues are material witnesses in trafficking and PocSo cases which are pending trial. Hence, premature release may expose the alleged detenues to threat and intimidation from trafhckers' The continued protective custody of the detenue would hence not only be in furtherance of their protection but also for preserving the integrity of the criminal proceedings. 13 2025 scc online sc 1970 23 MB,J & GPK,J 'I P.l,io.266a5 oJ 2025

35. Section 143 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2O2] (TINSJ def-rnes trallicking of a person and delineates conduct which u ould arnount to trafficking. Section 144 of the BNS deals with sexual :xploitation of a trafficked person. The spectre of the alleged detenues lr ,ing pushed into trafficking on their release is real and cannot be br: shed under thc carpet of indifference.

36. Thcrefore, in our view, the State respondents have taken a scnsitizcd approach in detaining the detenues in view ol the likelihood of thcrr safety bcing compromised during pendency of the r:: iminal cases. The State has a continued Dutv to Care and Protect for r I e Detenues

40. 'l'he Court is informed that both the detenues un lerucnt medical cxamin:rtion in 20 18 at Osmania General Hospital to dez I with hormonal inrbalance and other concerns. The detenues a-lso unc r rwent DNA and HIV tcsts pursuant to proceedings before the District Ccr rt at Nalgon<la. Thc clctr:nue No. I exhibited mental health disturbancc rnd rvas treated at the lnstitutc of Mental Hea-lth, Erragadda, in Decembt:; 2O23 pursuant to orders o[ the Court. Further, as stated above, both t le dcrenues are 5 I 24 MB,J &, GPX,J W.P.l,Io.266aS ol 2U25 victims/material witnesses in tralhcking and POCSO cases which are presently pending trial.

41. The State has a Constitutiona-l mandate under Article 39 of the Constitution of India under the Directive Principles of State Policy requiring the State to direct its policy for securing certain principles to be followed. Article 39(f) provides that children must be given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner ald in conditions of dignity and be protected against exploitation and moral ald materia,l abandonment. Even otherwise, *a. State has a fundamental responsibility to protect individuals from harm, particularly vulnerable individuals who are tl.e victims of exploitation, abuse, trafTicking. Both the detenues were rescued from trafhcking and have sulfered trauma resulting in al impaired ability to make informed dccisions. The imminent risk of their being pushed back into lhe sex trade cannot be ruled out. Reports from Yadagirigutta which have been brought to the notice of the Court increases th-e likelihood of re-exploitation.

42. One of the primary objectives of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is to rehabilitate and re-integrate such individuals/children in ttre mainstream. The aim of the Act is to provide for an empowered mainstreaming as opposecl to re-integration which 25 MB,J & GPK,J 'n P.I{o.26585 ol2O2S could result in re-traumatization. The Act conter tplates effective rehabilitation which would be evident from the followinp: (1) Sections 2(5) and 46 provide for 'Aftercare ' of children and envisages a child leaving a child care ir stitution on years of age being 1r: ovided with other forms of assistanc,: in order to completion of eighteen financial support and facilitatc the child,s re-integration into the mz instream of society. (ii) Section 49(l) casts an obligation on the State Government to seL up a place of safety and pla )e a person above the agc of cighteen or a child in conflict with aw who has been accu sed of or convicted of a heinous offence. (iii) Scction 76 provides for a saleguard against :mploying a child lor begging as well as punishment for the sarru . (iv) Section 8 I provides for punishment for sale and procurenrenl oi, hilclren for any purpose. (v) Rule 79(5) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and F rotection of Children) Model Rules, 2O16 recommends t]rat a ch Id who has attained eightecn -years be placed in an .Aftercare,pr tgramme if 26 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.lto.266&S oJ 2025 etigible and subject to tl:e consent of the child and the approval of the Board or the Committee/ Children's Court

43. We also deem it necessar)r to mention that aftercare envisages not only effective but inclusive and sympathetic care grven by the State Authorities to the Juvenile/Adult. There must not be any complaint against the State Home/Authorities on the inadequacy or indifference of the care

44. Hence, the State is both under a Constitutional as well as a legal statutory mandate to extend support and infrastnrcture to children who have become adults in the Process of confinement' More important' the State cannot wash its hands off from continuous protection of children and from ensuring meaningful re-integration into society after they attain adulthood.lnl.ttcases,Courtsplaythero|eofparenspatriaebytreating the child/adult, not as a delinquent, but as a victim viewed through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation and re-integration into society: om Prakash (a) lsrael @ Raju @ Raju Das u' Union of lndiate ' r., 2025 INlc 43 27 B,J & GPK,J \ f . P. r'to.2 6685 ol 2 02 s How cart the State in tervene?

45. The primary concern is to balance the alleged c :tenues, right to autonomy with the cluty of the State to protect them. lJ fiough t.I:e State must be cautious not to infaatilize the detenues by den.y ng them agency, it also cannot turn a blind eye to the history of expl ritation and the possibility of the detenues' being influenced by anti-sc< ial and criminal elements. We have no doubt that there must be a credi rle plan in place for the protection of the .rerenues and to faciritat e reafizition of their true potential as empou,ered members of the society. Our sul gestions in this regard: (a) The State can assess whether the victin: of trafhcking is in a position to make a 1:uly informed decision for leaving the child u,r:, iare system :rnd u,hether the victim manipulated b\. extcrnal forces. l>, ing (b) A menrr.rl health evaluation ls necessarrr to ascertzrin r"t hether thc victim can nr d<e independent ancl informed decisions. I I -- 28 MB,J & GPX,J W.P.tto.266As ol 2025 (c) Make a risk assessment as to whether alty protective measures are required to be implemented after the victim is released' (d) Provide a State Home Exit Plan including State Housing Programme designed for survivors of trafhcking. (e) Legal protection i.e., by issuing restraining orders against certain persons who pose an immediate threat to the victim' (0 Provide education, vocational training and place lhe victims in a suitable employment away from cxploitation- (g) Provide monetary and support structure to a victim if the victim decides to leave the care facilities by providing access to emergency support services and developing a partnership u,ith organiz-ations working for anti-social trafhcking and victims' protection prograrnme ' 29 MB,J&GPK,J q P.No.266aS oI2O25 (h) The State cal a-[so approach the Cour. for necessary orders for temporary guardia Lship arrangement or a Court monitoring systerr -o be put into place lor safeguarding the victim. Conclusion

46. First, the above discussion on the under\ring corLr erns leads us to tJle firm conclusion that the wrrt petitioner lacks locus r;i zndi to rrratrttairr the Writ Petition. The petitioncr's capacity to ensure iu for the detenues upon their release is riddled with un,: ' empowered life :rtainty. This is over and above the petitioner's standing as a friend of th : detenues being doubttul.

47. Second, the facts brought to our notice by the resl ondents raises a real likelihood of the detenues being pushed into the se) trade once they are free from the protectivc confines of the State Home. The petitioner's argument that the detenues should be free to script ttLr ir futures is not compelling enough to dispel the risk of re-victimization. the fact that the detenues as well as the petitioner \r,ere rescued from t.'r fficking in 2018 and again intend to reside in an area which is notori(r rs for sex trade, adds to the Court's anxielt.. Besides, both the deterr res a.re material i t I 30 AB,J & GPK,J w.P-Ib.266as of 2O25 witnesses in sensitive traffrcking and POCSO cases which are pending trial which further necessitates their protection from influence and intimidation.

48. Third, we do not have any doubt that keepir-rg tJle alleged detenues within the protective confines of the State Horne under the over-arching legislative scheme of the JJ Act, 2015 does not amount to an illegal detention. The concept of Aftercare' within a structured support system of supervision can only be seen as protective custody. The above reasons compel us to hold that the detenues being lodged in the Stiate Home does not amount to iltegal detention under any circumstances.

49. Notably, a Writ of Habeas Corpus is founded on a strong moral hbre where the Cour[ roots for personal liberty subject to the unimpeachable crcdentials of the petitioner who seeks to liberate the detenues. [n the prcsent case, the relief for Habeas Corpus fails under all three cou n [s

50. We accordingly hold that the Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. Thc other concerns which we have raised are incidental to the question of maintainabllity but must be stated to underscore the real risk of the detenues being exposed to re-victimization on their release' .:. 31 aB,JA,GPEJ 97 P-No.266AS of 2025

51. W.P.No.26685 of 2025, along with all connecteci applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim Orders, if any, shall stanc vacated' There shall be no order as to costs. sD/- AH MEt,{$ikttTrfHffi //TRUE COPY// sEclotl oFFlcER 'O,.,. ON" CC tO MS' VASUDHA NAGARAJ' AdVOCAIE [OPUC 2. One CCto SRI L RAVI CHANDER' Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRI DEEPAK MISHRA' Advocate [OPUCI 4. 11 LR CoPies 5. The Under S5rcr.$ary' Union of lndia' Ministry of Law Justice and Company . rtion, Library, High Court 6 The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Assocta ; 'dffi*r,;r;#'Hy'1"{" .ENERAL' Hish r)ourt ror the state or Affairs, New uetnt 8 BSR LS Two CD CoPies ( $- HIGH COURT DATED: 1511012025 ORDER WP.No.26685 of 2025 .], ( OR ( : :::_ S /,: : o o 0t n,-. . trrx * o ^^ : ) / DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ( tr t\ z\