Seventy days. A child of about two from Tuni is still a missing file.

Seventy days after a toddler left the public record in a Kakinada village, the police have told the High Court they have not found her. The court has told the police to come back every 15 days until they do.

The child is Sunkara Gnaneswari of Tuni. She went missing on 6 June 2026 from CH Agraharam village, Tuni mandal, Kakinada district. She is about two, or two and a half, years old. As of 20 August 2026 she had been missing 70 days. She has not been traced. Those sentences are the whole of the disappearance as this desk will write it. There is no sighting in these facts. There is no suspect. This desk will not invent either.

On 20 August, Andhra Pradesh police submitted a status report to the High Court in her case. Kakinada advocate G. Srikanth had filed a public interest petition saying police had failed to find her. The Bench was Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan. Government Pleader Jayanti said all possible leads were being pursued. “All possible leads” is a lawyer’s phrase for a search that has not yet produced the child. It is not a list of leads. The card does not name one.

The court directed police to file a further report every 15 days on efforts to trace her. Fifteen days is now the legal clock. Seventy days is the human clock. The first number will keep repeating until the second number stops.

The same Bench also sought statewide data for the past year: missing boys and girls, how many were traced, how many are still untraced, and whether Supreme Court standard operating procedures on missing-child cases were followed. Gnaneswari’s file has been used to open a larger register. A single untraced toddler in Tuni is now the reason the state must count its missing children.

Her father, Ganesh, has started a YouTube channel sharing photographs and videos of his daughter. That is a father’s search in a public square the police file has not closed. This desk will not describe those pictures. It will not turn a missing two-year-old into a face for a card. The channel exists. The child does not, on 20 August, exist in a traced address.

Earlier, on 30 June 2026, police announced a ₹1 lakh reward. That is a June figure. It is not a new 20 August announcement. Twenty-four days after she went missing, a price was put on information. Fifty days after that price, she is still missing. This desk will not raise the reward in a sentence the police have not raised.

CH Agraharam is a village in Tuni mandal. Tuni is a town name that now sits on a 70-day absence. Kakinada is the district that must keep filing every 15 days. The High Court has not, in these facts, named a transfer of investigation or a new agency. It has named a rhythm: report, 15 days, report.

A missing-child case is easy to over-write. A sighting in another town, a named vehicle, a quarrel in the house, a theory of trafficking — none of those are on this card. A newspaper that prints them anyway is inventing a child twice: once as lost, once as a plot. Gnaneswari is lost. She is not a plot.

What the 20 August hearing has done is narrower and harder. It has recorded that 70 days have not been enough. It has refused to let the file go quiet. It has asked whether the Supreme Court’s SOPs were followed, not only in Tuni, but in the state’s last year of missing boys and girls.

Until a traced address exists, the honest bulletin is the one the police have already given the court: not found. The next bulletin is due in 15 days. The child who should have been two, or two and a half, in CH Agraharam is still the reason those bulletins will be written.