Habeas corpus untenable for tracing missing person: Telangana HC

H
YDERABAD: The Telangana high court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking directions to the police to trace her missing father, who is an advocate.
The court ruled that a habeas corpus petition is not maintainable merely for locating a missing person.
A division bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao observed that the petition failed to establish sufficient grounds for invoking the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus. The bench clarified that the purpose of a habeas corpus writ is to secure the release of a person from illegal detention, not to trace individuals who are unaccounted for without evidence of unlawful custody.
The order was passed in response to a plea by the woman, a resident of Chilkalguda, who claimed her father had been missing for the past year.
She alleged that he disappeared while in Kerala, and sought the court's intervention to direct the authorities to trace him.
The bench said that the petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition, which was dismissed for default in April this year due to non-prosecution. Importantly, she had not filed any application to restore the earlier petition. In conclusion, the court held that the present writ was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the petition.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

17 minutes ago

• Business Standard

IndiGo employee alleges caste-based abuse by seniors; FIR registered

An IndiGo employee has filed a police complaint against three senior colleagues, accusing them of using casteist slurs and subjecting him to sustained workplace harassment, news agency PTI reported on Monday. The budget airline has strongly denied the allegations, calling them 'baseless' and stating that it was committed to ensuring a respectful and inclusive work environment. Sharan A, a 35-year-old employee based in Bengaluru, claimed in his complaint that he had been repeatedly targeted and humiliated because of his caste identity. He belongs to the Adi Dravida community, a Scheduled Caste recognised under India's Constitution. According to police officials, the incident in question occurred during a company meeting on April 28 in Gurugram, Haryana. Since the complaint was initially filed in Bengaluru, city police there registered a zero FIR, a provision that allows police to initiate a case regardless of jurisdiction, and subsequently transferred the case to Gurugram police. Following this, an FIR was formally registered at the DLF Phase-1 police station in Gurugram on Sunday. 'An FIR has been registered and a probe is underway. We are verifying the facts, and action will be taken as per the law,' said Station House Officer Rajesh Kumar. Complaint details caste-based harassment In the complaint, Sharan named three IndiGo employees who allegedly made derogatory and caste-based remarks against him during the April meeting. He also alleged that this was not an isolated incident, but part of an ongoing pattern of discrimination and intimidation. 'I was insulted in front of everyone. Caste-based verbal abuse, threats and discrimination were made. This has happened several times,' Sharan stated in his complaint. He further alleged that he was unfairly targeted through warning letters, unexplained salary deductions, curtailed sick leave, and cancellation of staff travel privileges. 'They even pressured me to resign,' he said. Sharan mentioned he had reported the matter to IndiGo's chief executive officer and the airline's ethics committee, but no action was taken. It was only after receiving no response that he decided to approach the police. IndiGo denies caste-based discrimination of employee In response, IndiGo issued a statement rejecting the allegations. 'IndiGo upholds a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of discrimination, harassment, or bias and remains firmly committed to being an inclusive and respectful workplace,' a company spokesperson said. 'We strongly refute these baseless claims and stand by our values of fairness, integrity and accountability. We will extend full support to the law enforcement agencies in their investigation,' the airline said.

United News of India

an hour ago

• United News of India

SC appreciates Tamil Nadu's use of preventive detention laws against cybercrime offenders

New Delhi, Jun 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday commended the State of Tamil Nadu for invoking preventive detention laws to tackle cybercrime, describing it as a "welcome trend" in combating growing digital frauds. A Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing a petition challenging the preventive detention of one Abhijeet Singh, a cybercrime accused. Singh's detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, had earlier been upheld by the Madras High Court. "This is a good trend coming from the State , that preventive detention laws are being used against cyber offenders. It's a very welcome approach. Normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these offenders," remarked Justice Mehta during the hearing. The petitioner, Singh's father, argued that the detention order was unconstitutional and violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. He contended that the alleged cyber fraud was a one-off incident and did not disturb public order. He also claimed that the notice for the Advisory Board hearing was served too close to the hearing date, preventing the detenu from making an effective representation. Singh, a Punjab native residing in New Delhi, was arrested on July 25, 2024, following a complaint of a cyber fraud amounting to Rs 84.5 lakh lodged at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Theni district. The complainant, Bhanumathi, alleged that Rs 12.14 lakh was transferred into Singh's account operated under the entity name M/s Creative Craaft. Investigations revealed that Singh had floated four companies and opened multiple bank accounts in the names of his family members to route the fraudulent funds. The District Collector issued the detention order on August 23, 2024, which was subsequently confirmed by the Advisory Board on September 25, and by the State Government for a 12-month period on November 9, 2024. The petitioner's counsel argued that Singh had no prior criminal record and emphasised that preventive detention for the maximum period was unjustified. In response, Justice Mehta observed, 'That is the discretion of the State. The period of detention cannot be decided by the court in writ jurisdiction. "If there is no basis for detention, the order itself has to go, the period cannot be curtailed independently.' The Court took note of the counter affidavit filed by the State and directed the Registry to upload it on record. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Wednesday, June 25, 2025. Earlier, the Madras High Court had dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the detention order was backed by sufficient material, the procedures were duly followed, and there was no legal infirmity to warrant interference. UNI SNG

The Hindu

6 hours ago

• The Hindu

Tirupparankundram row: Madras High Court dismisses H. Raja's plea against police notice summoning him for inquiry

The Madras High Court on Monday (June 23, 2025) dismissed a petition filed by BJP leader H. Raja to quash a notice issued to him by the Madurai City police for conducting an inquiry with regard to a speech delivered by him during a demonstration organised by Hindu Munnani at Pazhanganatham junction in Madurai city on February 4, 2025, alleging encroachment of the Tirupparankundram hillock. Justice P. Velmurugan refused to entertain the quash petition at the admission stage itself, after observing that a person summoned for inquiry by the police had no authority to challenge such a notice issued under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The judge directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer for the inquiry and extend full cooperation to the investigation. The issue relates to a massive controversy that had arisen early this year with a section of people alleging that a dargah had been constructed on an encroached portion atop the Tirupparankundram hillock, which houses the Subramaniaswamy Temple, one of the Arupadaiveedu (six sacred temples) of Lord Murugan. The Madurai city police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Mr. Raja after he participated in the demonstration. The FIR was registered for alleged offences under Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riots), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion), and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)). Subsequently, the police issued the notice under Section 35 of the BNSS for conducting an inquiry with Mr. Raja. The notice issued by the Inspector of Subramaniapuram police station also directed the petitioner to comply with a list of 10 conditions. The conditions required the BJP leader not to commit any offence in the future, not to tamper with the evidence in the present case, appear before the court concerned as and when required, and so on. The police had also warned him of arrest if he did not comply with the conditions. Mr. Raja had challenged the statutory notice on the ground that the investigating officer had exceeded his authority and assumed the role of a judicial magistrate by imposing such conditions on him. Though the quash petition was filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, it was transferred to Chennai and listed before Justice Velmurugan, who holds the portfolio of hearing all cases related to sitting as well as former MPs and MLAs.