NIMANANDA BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Saswata Pattanaik, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the daughter of the petitioner is untraceable since long, for which the petitioner had lodged a first information report on 12/10/2022 at the Bidanasi Police Station, Cuttack. However, he alleged that though almost a year has elapsed since the filing of the F.I.R., the Opposite Parties are not taking any efficacious step to trace out the daughter of the petitioner.

(3.) After hearing the submissions, it seems to be a case of missing person?. No material was produced to show that the daughter of the petitioner has been illegally detained by anyone. It is needless to say that the Court has to be satisfied about the factum of illegal detention? before it proceeds to entertain a petition seeking issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. There is no dearth of precedents from the Hon?ble Supreme Court and different High Courts to support the above position of law and there is hardly any need to reproduce all of them. The Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India -Vrs.- Yumnam Anand M. alias Bocha alias Kora alias Suraj and another reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 190 was of the opinion that a petitioner must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention? before it urges the Court to issue the prerogative writ of habeas corpus. The Apex Court elucidated the above mandate in a crisp and lucid manner and held as follows: