Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.S. Jhaveri, G.B. Shah, JJ.
Dineshbhai Bhagvanbhai Bambhaniya and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 5607 of 2015
Decided On : 01-04-2016
The High Court of Gujarat, while deciding a habeas corpus petition, framed questions to determine whether the petitioners approached the court with unclean hands, whether they should be prosecuted for giving false evidence, whether they should be allowed to waste judicial time and public money, whether they should be allowed to pollute the stream of justice, and whether the advocate for the petitioners was obliged to act as an officer of the court. The court answered the questions in the affirmative, finding that the petitioners had not come with accurate facts, had acted in haste without collecting ample information, and had created a panic situation. The court also found that the petitioners' conclusion of the corpus having been abducted by the police was erroneous and that their assumption was wrong. The court dismissed the petition and imposed costs on the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that the corpus, Mr. Hardik Patel, had been abducted by the police. The court took up the matter at midnight and issued notice to the respondents. The corpus was later produced before the court and the petitioners were given opportunities to substantiate their allegations. However, the petitioners failed to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not come with accurate facts, had acted in haste without collecting ample information, and had created a panic situation. The court also found that the petitioners' conclusion of the corpus having been abducted by the police was erroneous and that their assumption was wrong.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners approached the court with unclean hands by filing false and perfunctory affidavits? 2. Whether the petitioners should be prosecuted for giving false evidence? 3. Whether the petitioners should be allowed to waste judicial time and public money? 4. Whether the petitioners should be allowed to pollute the stream of justice? 5. Whether the advocate for the petitioners was obliged to act as an officer of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had approached the court with unclean hands by filing false and perfunctory affidavits. The court also held that the petitioners should not be prosecuted for giving false evidence, but that it was open to any party to apply for a certified copy of the proceedings and file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court. The court further held that the petitioners should not be allowed to waste judicial time and public money, and that they should not be allowed to pollute the stream of justice. Finally, the court held that the advocate for the petitioners was obliged to act as an officer of the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and imposed costs on the petitioners.
K.S. Jhaveri, J.
1. The petitioners herein have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of habeas corpus and to direct the respondents more particularly respondents No. 4 & 5 to produce the corpus - Mr. Hardik Patel before this Court and direct the respondents to set him free.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are enunciated in brief hereunder:
"2.1 The corpus - Mr. Hardik Patel had initiated a movement against the suppression of Patidar community in the State of Gujarat which had been widely supported by the community. In most of the events relating to the said movement, the petitioners remained present alongwith the corpus. On 25.08.2015, a gathering of the Patidar community was organized at GMDC ground, Ahmedabad wherein large number of persons were present. The police had to resort to lathi charge to disperse the crowd after 08.00 pm on the said day.
2.2 On 22.09.2015, a meeting was arranged at Tenpur village, Taluka - Bayad, District - Aravalli which was attended by the corpus. The meeting was arranged in a private place and police all of a sudden arrived at the place of meeting and tried to arrest the corpus. The public present there did not allow the police to arrest the corpus from the stage. The villagers feared that the police would cover the main road and therefore another route was suggested by the villagers. The petitioners and the corpus started from the place of meeting in different cars.
2.3 After about 3 to 4 kms in the car the police again cordoned and arrested the corpus who was travelling in a white Xylo car which was being driven by a local boy. The Xylo car was being followed by a Swift Car which was being driven by one Mr. Hemendra and three to four persons were seated in the said car. A third car followed the Swift car which was being driven by petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 was a passenger in the said car.
2.4 The petitioners who were a part of the people travelling in around 25 to 30 vehicles were intercepted by the police. They asked for the corpus as the corpus was not found in the car of the petitioners. The police tried to search in other cars as well but could not find the corpus. Thereafter, when the police came to know that the corpus was travelling in the Xylo car they started searching the said car. It is the case of the petitioners that the mobile phone of the corpus all the time remained with petitioner No. 1 and on that day also it was with petitioner No. 1. The corpus was without a mobile phone and that they had no information about any person travelling with the corpus having mobile.
2.5 When the petitioners reached Ahmedabad in the evening, they did not have any message from the corpus on his mobile phone which was with petitioner No. 1. The petitioners, however, received message that the police did not claim arrest of the corpus and that the corpus himself had left the place. It is the averment of the petitioners in the petition that the corpus was cordoned and surrounded by the police before the eyes of the petitioners and as such police has abducted the corpus and therefore there would not have been any scope for the corpus to leave the said place.
2.6 Therefore, apprehending the serious threat to the life of Mr. Hardik Patel - corpus, the petitioners had filed this habeas corpus petition so as to direct the respondents to produce the corpus who is claimed to be unlawfully detained by the police before the eyes of the petitioners and who had claimed not to have arrested him."
3. Before proceeding with recording of the submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides, we would also like to jot down the events which happened after the filing of the present petition. It shall be pertinent to note that after the corpus went missing at around 06.00 pm on 22.09.2015 (Tuesday) which was followed by news reports wherein the police claimed to have not arrested him and the petitioners claiming to have seen him being arrested by the police,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
