Court holds newspaper reports as inadmissible hearsay; dismissal of habeas corpus petition seeking production of accused in ganja smuggling case
In a significant judgment dated August 18, 2026, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sukanti Bilar Sing and another seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of an accused, Mohammed Sohel, allegedly held in illegal custody by the police. The petitioners relied heavily on a newspaper report claiming that Sohel was arrested alongside two others in a ganja smuggling case but escaped from police custody before being produced before the court.
The case arose from an FIR registered on June 9, 2026, against Sohel (A1), Rajesh Kumar Singh (A2), and Anoop Singh (A3) for involvement in the illegal transportation of ganja. Two drivers (A4 and A5) were arrested at the scene, and based on their confessions, the other three accused were arrayed. While A2 and A3 were arrested and sent to judicial remand, the police claimed that A1 was absconding and had not been arrested. The petitioners disputed this, asserting that Sohel was in illegal detention and not produced before the magistrate, violating his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioners' primary basis was a Times of India newspaper report dated June 16, 2026, which stated that Sohel was arrested but escaped custody. The High Court, after hearing submissions from both sides, held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable for a missing or absconding person unless there is verifiable evidence of unlawful detention. The Court emphasized that newspaper reports are hearsay evidence under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be relied upon to establish facts such as illegal detention.
Citing precedent from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling in Simmi Bai v. Shrimaan Police Mahanirikshak Mahodaya, the Court clarified that habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited to cases where detention is illegal. Mere absence or evasion of arrest by a person does not amount to unlawful custody warranting issuance of habeas corpus.
The petitioners also failed to produce any independent material or contemporaneous complaints indicating illegal detention of Sohel. Instead, their claim that Sohel was "missing" or "absconding" was unsupported by evidence beyond the newspaper article. The Court noted that the petitioners did not file any rejoinder denying the police's assertion that Sohel was evading arrest. Furthermore, the petitioners sought production of Sohel primarily to aid the defense of A2 and A3, which is beyond the scope of habeas corpus relief.
The Court referred extensively to the judgment in Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court held that statements in newspapers are hearsay and inadmissible unless corroborated by direct evidence. It also referenced various other cases reinforcing that petitions based solely on unverified media reports do not constitute a valid cause for relief.
In conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that without substantive material establishing illegal detention, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued. The Court also clarified that the status of Sohel as missing or absconding does not attract habeas corpus jurisdiction in the absence of proof of unlawful custody. The petitioners' attempt to invoke the writ to secure the presence of Sohel to assist in the defense of others was rejected.
This judgment reinforces the principle that habeas corpus is a remedy against unlawful detention and cannot be used as a tool to produce missing or absconding persons without credible evidence of illegal custody. It also underscores the inadmissibility of newspaper reports as evidence of facts without further verification.
Bottom Line:
A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable for a missing or absconding person unless there is verifiable evidence of unlawful detention. A newspaper report, being hearsay evidence, is inadmissible for establishing unlawful detention.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
This news report summarizes the Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling in Writ Petition No. 16256 of 2026 (Sukanti Bilar Sing and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others), which clarifies the limited scope of habeas corpus writs in cases involving missing or absconding persons and cautions against reliance on media reports as evidence.
Sukanti Bilar Sing v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2970472
