Gokul Prasad Loniya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:45755-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPHC No. 18 of 2025

¶6

Gokul Prasad Loniya S/o Shri Maya Ram Loniya Aged About 42 Years R/o Karhipara Village Nirtu Ps Koni And Tahsil Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2. The Director General of Police Police Headquarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3. The Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶12

4. The Superintendent of Police Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

5. The Station House Officer Police Station Koni District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6. Subodh Madhukar @ Chhota S/o Late Dharam Madhukar Aged About 21 Years R/o Karhipara Village Nirtu Ps Koni And Tahsil Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

...Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.

¶17

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2025.09.09 17:33:50 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

09.09.2025

¶23

1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State.

¶24

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶25

“ i. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶26

call for the entire records of the case.

¶27

ii. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 5 to produce the corpus/detinue Ku. Dashoda Loniya (minor) aged about 13 years 07 months before the Hon’ble Court.

¶28

Iii. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to 305/2025 dated 09.07.2025 and/or

¶29

iv. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 5 to bring (or record the statement of) respondent No. 6, namely, “Subhodh Madhukar @ Chhota” before the Hon’ble Court.

¶30

3

¶31

v. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 5 to take appropriate steps in order to find respondent No. 6 and the detinue expeditiously.

¶32

vi. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 5 to investigate “Pallavi Chelak” (Sister of respondent No. 6) or his brother-inlaw “Rakesh Baghel” about the whereabouts of the minor detinue or respondent No. 6.

¶33

vii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶34

Viii. That, any other relief, which the petitioners are entitled and this Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly, be granted to the petitioners. ”

¶35

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, father of the victim minor girl, has preferred the present Habeas Corpus petition stating that his daughter has been missing since 07.07.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Village Karhipara, Nirtu, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur, and earns his livelihood as a daily wage labourer. On the report lodged by his wife, Crime No. 305/2025 dated 09.07.2025 was registered at Police Station Koni under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) against respondent No. 6. It is further alleged that the victim was last seen in the company of respondent No. 6, which has given rise to a serious

¶36

4

¶37

apprehension that she has been abducted.

¶38

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submitted that since an FIR has already been registered at the instance of petitioner’s wife under Section 137(2) of the BNS against the suspected person, the present Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable in respect of a missing person. To support his submission, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in Malikram Gendre v. State of Chhattisgarh & others , WPHC No. 3 of 2020 , decided on 03.05.2023, Smt. Jaymati Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & others , WPHC No. 8 of 2019 , decided on 22.04.2022, and Santoshi Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh , WPHC No. 15 of 2023 , decided on 12.06.2023.

¶39

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶40

6. In Malikram Gendre (supra), this Court, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling & others , reported in (1973) 2 SCC 674 and Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ Suraj , (2007) 10 SCC 190 , has held that the primary object of a writ of Habeas Corpus is to secure release of a person unlawfully detained. It is essentially a procedural writ and not a substitute for investigation of a missing person.

¶41

7. Similarly, in Smt. Jaymati Sahu (supra), this Court observed that unless there exists an allegation or prima facie suspicion of “illegal

¶42

5

¶43

detention”, a Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable. Missing person cases are required to be dealt with under the regular provisions of the criminal law by registration of FIR and investigation by the police, and not through the extraordinary jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus.

¶44

8. Further, in Santoshi Yadav (supra), this Court reiterated the same principle that in the absence of any allegation of “illegal detention”, Habeas Corpus petitions in relation to missing persons cannot be entertained, and the appropriate remedy lies in investigation under the Cr.P.C.

¶45

9. In the present case, the daughter of the petitioner has been missing since 07.07.2025 and a missing report has already been lodged by the wife of the petitioner on 09.07.2025, on which basis Crime No.305/2025 under Section 137(2) of the BNS has been registered against respondent No. 6. There is no specific allegation of “illegal detention” of the corpus. In light of the settled principles noticed hereinabove, the present Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable.

¶46

10. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised, in future.

¶47

11. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶48

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶49

Brijmohan

Gokul Prasad Loniya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Prasad Loniya v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Bhupendra Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrapratap Tiwari @ Chandu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dheeraj Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh