B. Subrahmanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. SUBRAHMAN Y AM,, S/O B. JAYARAMA CHET T Y, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O D.N O . 7-626, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI D ISTRICT, A.P.,PIN. 517644.

¶11

B. SUJATHA,, W/ O B. SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7-626, NE A R RTC BUS STAND, SRI KALA H ASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRI C T, A.P.,PIN. 517644.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, H OME DEPARTMENT, AP S ECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMA R AVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 522238

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P. P OLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MAN G ALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 522501.

¶16

THE SUPERINTE N DENT OF POLICE, SRI KALA H ASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRI C T, A.P., PIN. 517501.

¶17

THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S R I KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI D ISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 517644.

¶18

THE STATION H O USE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, SRI KALAHASTI TOW N , TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 51 7 644.

¶19

2

¶20

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9327 of 2026

¶21

BOSU, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O NEAR TIRUMALA HOSPITAL, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 517644. CELL NO. 9550405806.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents no. 3 to 5 to produce the Petitioners Daughter by namely B. Sujatha W/o B. Subrahmanyam, R/o D.no. 7-626, Near RTC Bus stand, Sri Kalahasti Town, Tirupati District, A.P., Pin. 517644 before this Honble Court from detainment of Respondent no. 6 who missed from the Sri Kalahasti Town on 29.01.2026 and set her free to go with parents i.e.. Petitioner no. 1 (Father) and Petitioner no. 2 (Mother), and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.SHAIK AFZAL MOHAMMED

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶28

3

¶29

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9327 of 2026

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶32

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioners, seeking direction to respondent No.3-the Superintendent of Police of Tirupati District, to produce the corpus by name G.Dhanalakshmi, who is a major, wife of G.Hari Prasad, before the Court, alleged to have been in illegal detention of respondent No.6, who was found missing from the Kalahasti Town from 29.01.2026 and then to set her at liberty.

¶33

Heard Mr. Shaik Afzal Mohammed, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 5. Since we are disposing of this writ petition, as per the material placed before the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, as not maintainable, notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is dispensed with.

¶34

The petitioners are the parents of a woman by name G.Dhanalakshmi. She is a fully grown up woman, aged about 34 years. She is also a married woman. She has been living with her husband by name G.Hari Prasad in Kalahasti Town. They are also blessed with two children during their lawful wedlock. While she was living with her husband G.Hari Prasad, she was found missing from 29.01.2026.

¶35

It is pleaded in the writ petition by the petitioners, who are her parents that it has come to their knowledge that the corpus, who is her daughter, earlier was in relationship with respondent No.6 and they used to have conversation over phone and that respondent No.6 has taken her away and wrongfully confined her against her will and her whereabouts are not known. It is further pleaded that they have strong reason to believe that their daughter, who is the corpus, is under illegal detention of respondent No.6 and she is under threat and undue influence of respondent No.6.

¶36

4

¶37

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9327 of 2026

¶38

From the aforesaid pleadings in the writ petition, it is not the specific case of the petitioners that the corpus was taken away by the 6^th respondent and has illegally confined her and kept her under his undue influence under threat. It is only stated in a vague manner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that it came to their knowledge that he has taken her away and illegally confined her and kept her under undue influence. How the said fact came to their knowledge is not stated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. So, it is a vague plea taken by them. They themselves are not sure that the corpus was taken away by the 6^th respondent and illegally confined her.

¶39

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, on instructions, submits that while the corpus was residing with her husband by name G.Hari Prasad that she left the house voluntarily on 29.01.2026 and left his company and since then, she was found missing. It is stated that her husband G.Hari Prasad has also lodged a report with the Police on 30.01.2026, alleging that his wife, who is the corpus, went to bazaar at 4.00 P.M., on 29.01.2026 on the pretext of purchasing fruits and other articles for pooja purpose and thereafter, she did not return home and requested the Police to trace her whereabouts. On the basis of the said report, a ‘woman missing’ case was registered by the Police in FIR.No.16 of 2026 on 30.01.2026. He has also produced a copy of the said report lodged by her husband, along with the registered FIR. The same are taken on record. It is evident from a perusal of the said report lodged by her husband that she left his house on 29.01.2026 on the pretext of going to bazaar and thereafter, she did not return home and that she was found missing from that day. He did not state anything in his report that she was taken away by the 6^th respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the corpus was taken away by the 6^th respondent and that he has illegally confined her. Even, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that even though the Police are making efforts to trace her whereabouts that still they could not find out her

¶40

5

¶41

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9327 of 2026

¶42

whereabouts. Therefore, it is not a case where the corpus was taken away by the 6^th respondent and illegally confined or detained her, as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners have deliberately suppressed the true facts and filed the writ petition with false and misleading facts, making certain allegations against the 6^th respondent. Even, as per the submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader, made, on instructions, it is not found that the corpus was taken away by the 6^th respondent. Therefore, when she voluntarily left the house and went away and when she was found missing and when the Police registered a ‘woman missing’ case on the report lodged by her husband when she was found missing, this writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable.

¶43

Illegal confinement or illegal detention is the foundation to maintain a writ for Habeas Corpus. As it is not found from the material on record that the corpus was illegally confined or detained by the 6^th respondent or any other person, the very writ petition for Habeas Corpus it not maintainable.

¶44

The legal position in this regard is well settled. The Apex Court, in the case of Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha¹ , at para No.13 of the judgment, held as follows:

¶45

It is a settled principle of law that a writ of habeas corpus is available as a remedy in all cases where a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty. It is processual writ to secure liberty of the citizen from unlawful or unjustified detention whether a person is detained by the State or is in private detention.

¶46

Further, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Simmi Bai v. Shrimaan Police Mahanirikshak Mahodaya and others² elaborately dealt with the legal position relating to maintainability of the writ petition in the case of missing persons, with reference to earlier judicial precedents rendered on the point. At para No.16 of the judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court

¶47

1 (2020) 14 SCC 161

¶48

2 2025 SCC OnLine MP 893

¶49

6

¶50

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9327 of 2026

¶51

held that cases of missing persons cannot be brought under the purview of Habeas Corpus petition. It is held that cases of missing persons are to be registered under regular provisions of Penal Code, 1860 and Police officials concerned are bound to investigate the same in the manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such cases are to be dealt as regular cases by the competent Court of law and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts cannot be invoked for the purpose of dealing with such cases of missing persons. Thus, the constitutional Courts across the country predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a ground of “illegal detention” and a strong suspicion about any such “illegal detention” is a condition precedent for moving a habeas corpus petition and the constitutional Court shall not entertain a habeas corpus petition, where there is no allegation of “illegal detention” or suspicion about any such “illegal detention”.

¶52

Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the above plethora of judgments, as it is not found in this case that the corpus was illegally confined or detained by the 6^th respondent, as alleged, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, as a crime was registered under ‘woman missing’ case and as investigation is pending, the respondents-Police officials are directed to continue the investigation and make an effort to trace the whereabouts of the corpus and take the investigation to its logical conclusion, as early as possible. The law has to take its own course as regards the crime that was registered.

¶53

Before parting with the matter, we would like to point out the irresponsible way of drafting the writ petition in this matter. The name of the corpus is G.Dhanalakshmi and the name of her husband is G.Hari Prasad. But, in the pleadings of entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the name of the corpus is wrongly mentioned as B.Sujatha and the name of her husband is wrongly mentioned as B.Subrahmanyam. This reflects the careless drafting of the pleadings in the writ petition by the concerned. In fact,

¶54

7

¶55

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9327 of 2026

¶56

this Court is coming across such blunders being committed in drafting the pleadings every day, while dealing with several writ petitions. This case is another classic example of such careless and irresponsible drafting of the pleadings. This shows that even without going through the pleadings that the counsel is signing the writ petitions before filing in the Court, which is not the established practice of advocacy. We seriously deprecate the same. We hope and trust that the counsel concerned will not commit such mistakes in filing the cases in such a careless manner. We expect the counsel to be careful and responsible in drafting the pleadings and filing petitions before the Court.

¶57

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶60

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶61

Date: 08.04.2026 MDP

B. Subrahmanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Subrahmanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Jyothiraadhitya Infra Vs Pratap C Joisher

B Radha Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppisetti Lakshmi Bhavani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Veerabrahmam Vs Chairman

Mulupuri Raji Anupama Vs Chairman District Legal Services Authority Cum Principal District Judge

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Vs Dontala Govinda Rao