Short Note : 1. This petition was filed on 3-11-77 praying for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other direction or order against the respondents for the production and release of one Mahipat, father of the petitioner who, according to the petitioner, is being unlawfully detained by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are conniving at such unlawful detention. Held : The writ of Habeas Corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from unlawful detention either in the custody of the State or of private person. Liberty of a person has to be very jealously guarded and the Court must have a watchful vigilance in such matter to see that no person is deprived of his liberty and fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. It cannot be gainsaid that in this respect the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide enough to pass any suitable order or direction which the Court considers appropriate and necessary in the particular circumstances of a case. 2. The basic requirement for the exercise of these powers by the Court in a Habeas Corpus petition, as this is a remedy to facilitate the release of a person in unlawful custody is that the person who is to be set at liberty must be under detention. 3. As we have already said hereinabove, in this petition, this basic point is itself in controversy, that is, whether Shri Mahipat is under detention. 4. This Court in order to satisfy itself had called for the result with details, of the investigation which have been furnished on affidavits to disbelieve which prima facie there is no material on record. And according to these affidavits yet there is nothing to hold that Mahipat was taken away by respondents 1 to 3; that the other respondents connived or are conniving with them in his detention much less illegal. There is nothing on record which may satisfy this Court that Mahipat is detained by any of the respondents. 5. The petitioner has made a sweeping attack on the propriety or genuineness of the act of the police officials regarding the investigation of the case, without placing material facts much less material to support and wanted this Court to discard their version. 5. The petitioner has made a sweeping attack on the propriety or genuineness of the act of the police officials regarding the investigation of the case, without placing material facts much less material to support and wanted this Court to discard their version. We are unable to persuade ourselves to endorse the sweeping allegation of the petitioner. Ordinarily the presumption is that public servants would do their official duty regularly and properly. In this view in the absence of enough and inspiring material merely on basis of surmises and conjectures we are unable to persuade ourselves that police official of the rank of Superintendent of Police would connive with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the illegal detention of Mahipat and run the risk of bringing themselves in dis-repute and clutches of the law. 6. We can understand the anxiousness of the petitioner on account of the untraceability of his father for quite a long time and due to that under emotion his making all possible allegations against persons who are expected to find out his trace. The Court is equally anxious to protect the precious right of liberty of the person; but the Court has to act according to and under the law, not on emotions. In view of the fact that there is no satisfactory material on record to indicate that Mahipat is detained much less illegally by any of the respondents, we are unable to allow this petition, 1978 Cr. LJ 86, distinguished. Petition dismissed.