Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sukanti Bilar Sing and Kuntala Sing, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Mohammed Sohel, Rajesh Kumar Singh, and Anoop Singh, who were alleged to be in illegal detention. The petitioners contended that Mohammed Sohel was being held unlawfully by the police, while the respondents claimed that he was absconding since the registration of the FIR on June 9, 2026. The petitioners based their claims on a newspaper report that suggested Sohel had been arrested but later escaped police custody. The court analyzed the maintainability of the writ, emphasizing that a writ of habeas corpus requires evidence of unlawful detention, which was not established in this case. The court noted that the petitioners failed to provide any verifiable evidence supporting their claims and that the newspaper report was considered hearsay. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the mere assertion of a person being missing does not warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus without evidence of illegal detention. The court concluded that the petitioners did not demonstrate any unlawful custody of the accused, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - Writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable for a missing person without evidence of unlawful detention - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court held that mere absence of a person does not equate to illegal detention, and without verifiable facts, the writ cannot be entertained. (Paras 50-53) B) Evidence Law - Hearsay Evidence - Newspaper Reports - Statements in newspapers are considered hearsay and inadmissible unless substantiated by direct evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 81 - The court ruled that reliance on newspaper reports without corroborating evidence does not establish illegal detention. (Paras 38-40) C) Criminal Procedure - Absconding Accused - Writ of Habeas Corpus - A writ cannot be issued for an absconding accused as there is no illegal detention - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court found that the accused was absconding and not in custody, thus the writ was dismissed. (Paras 49-52)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable based on a publication in a newspaper directing the respondents to produce A1 when he is said to be absconding or missing?
Final Decision
The Writ Petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to establish any unlawful detention of A1, and the reliance on a newspaper report was deemed insufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Law Points
- Habeas Corpus
- Illegal Detention
- Absconding
- Hearsay Evidence
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India
