Legal provisions involved: Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Judgement by: Karnataka High Court.

Bench: Justice Anu Sivaramana and Justice Rajesh Rai K

Facts

The petitioner claimed that her son had been missing since July 2025 and filed a habeas corpus petition. She had earlier filed a similar petition and later withdrawn it. During the hearing, the police traced her son in Chennai and produced him before the court. Call records showed that he was in regular contact with his mother, sister, and friends during the time he was said to be missing.

Key legal provisions

Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs, including habeas corpus, to protect personal liberty.

Issues raised

Was the habeas corpus petition filed to genuinely find a missing person, or was it misused for personal reasons?

Arguments of the case

The State argued that the petition was filed to settle personal disputes and to target the police, and that important facts were hidden from the court. The petitioner alleged police misconduct, which the State denied with records and video evidence.

Judgement

The High Court found that the petition was filed with bad intentions and misused the habeas corpus remedy. Calling it an abuse of the court process, the court dismissed the petition and imposed a ₹2 lakh fine on the petitioner, to be paid to legal aid and police welfare funds.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.