SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 626

S. MOHAN, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, A. S. ANAND
Arvinder Singh Bagga – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.S.PUNDIR, R.S.SODHI

(1) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides. At the time the petition was moved, the girl was in police custody. She has since been released. But, we are afraid, this cannot be the end of the matter. The writ petition shall continue as one for qualified habeas corpus for examining the legality of the detention for determining whether the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the illegal detention as a public law remedy for violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, quite apart from criminal or civil liability which may be pursued in the ordinary course.

(2) THE respondents are directed to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks,

(3) AT the request of.Mr R.S. Sodhi. learned counsel for the petitioner, notice against Respondent 3 is discharged.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top