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

2021 Supreme(All) 1233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, SHAMIM AHMED, JJ.
Abhishek Kumar Singh Thru Nest Friend Shubhangi Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Home And Ors. - Respondents
Habeas Corpus No.29158 of 2021
Decided on : 14-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar Singh

Point of Law : A writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court is available in case of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 but it does not relate to interference with the personal liberty by a private citizen. However, the High Court has jurisdiction to issue writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not only for violation of fundamental rights of freedom but also for other purposes.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21, Articles 32 and 226 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 41-A, 161, 164, 41 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 149, 504, 506, 186, 353, 354, 341, 228, 323 - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 - Section 7 -Habeas Corpus – Protection of life and personal liberty – Punishment for rioting – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Punishment for criminal intimidation - Petitioner submits that petitioner is challenging his arrest and detention by respondents, which was made unlawfully without following provisions of Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code by issuing and giving a notice under said provision - Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with offence under investigation.

Findings of the court :

Petitioner, who is in judicial custody and is confined to jail, pursuant to a judicial order passed by competent court of Judicial Magistrate, detention of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal - writ of habeas corpus is essentially a procedural writ - It deals with machinery of justice and not the substantive law - Object of writ is to secure release of a person, who is illegally restrained of his/ her liberty - Writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner is in jail in furtherance of the judicial order passed by the competent court of law - Prima facie, said judicial order does not appear to be without jurisdiction and has been passed in a legal manner. Since the petitioner is in custody by virtue of a judicial order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, hence it cannot be said to be an illegal detention.

Result : Writ petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Shri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

    (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘Habeas Corpus’ declaring the petitioner’s arrest/ detention bad in law, consequently a writ of Habeas Corpus be issued and the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.

(ii) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) allow the petition of petitioner with cost.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging his arrest and detention by the respondents on 09.12.2021 at about 05.00 hours, which was made unlawfully without following the provisions of Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code by issuing and giving a notice under the said provision.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is a practicing advocate at Civil Court as well as the High Court at Lucknow since 2001. In the year 2017, with respect to an incident relating to Mrs. Sandhya Srivastava, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow an FIR dated 25.03.2017 was registered bearing FIR No. 149 of 2017, under Sections 147, 149, 504, 506, 186, 353, 354, 341, 228 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow against two named accused, Anurag Trivedi and Saifi Hasan Mirza and 25 to 30 unknown advocates/ persons. It was submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the said FIR and that serious allegations had been made only against Anurag Trivedi and Saifi Hasan Mirza. The contents of the FIR are being reproduced hereinbelow:

    udy rgjhj fgUnh okfnuh Vkbi'kqnk iszf"kdk] la/;k JhokLro] eq[; U;kf;d eftLVsªV] y[kuÅ lsok eas] Fkkuk/;{k othjxat y[kuÅ fo"k;&vf/koDrk vuqjkx f=osnh] lSQh fetkZ ,oa muds 25&30 lkfFk;ksa }kjk xkyh fn;s tkus o vHknz O;ogkj fd;s tkus ds dkj.k muds fo:) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djds dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus gsrq egksn; fuosnu gS dy fnukad 24-3-2017 dks eSa U;k;ky; le; ij ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k] egksn; ds foJke d{k ls vkt gksus okyh ekfuVfjax lsy dh ehfVax ij ppkZ djds vius foJke d{k esa vk jgh Fkh rHkh vius dk;kZy; ,oa U;k;ky; d{k dk njoktk cUn ns[kdj eSus vius LVkQ jkds'k ckcw ls iwNk fd ;g njoktk cUn D;ksa gS rHkh vf/koDrk vuqjkx f=osnh us esjs ikl vkdj dgk fd eSaus cUn djok;k gS] bl ij eSus iwNk D;ksa] rHkh vf/koDrk us dgk fd vki us jtuh'k feJk]¼vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVsªV] izFke½ ds ;gk¡ ls Qkby eaxok;h gS D;k eSus dgk fd gk¡ eaxok;h gS] ysfdu vki fdl gd ls eq>ls ;g iwN jgs gS rc bl ij ogka [kM+s ,d vU; vf/koDrk lSQh fetkZ us dgk ;s mik/;{k gS] rHkh vuqjkx f=osnh us lhuk Bksddj dgk fd eSa vf/koDrk gw¡] vki us ml dksVZ ls Qkby D;ksa eaxk;h blds ckn yxHkx 25&30 vf/koDrk us eq>s ?ksj fy;k] esjk xuj bj'kkn mu yksxksa dks gVkrk jgk] ijUrq vuqjkx f=osnh us yxHkx ph[krs gq, eq>ls dgk eknjpksn lkyh Hkz"Vkpkj dk vM~Mk cuk j[kk gS eSa rqjar gh okil eqM+dj pSEcj dh vksj tkus yxh] esjs ihNs&ihNs vuqjkx f=osnh ,oa lSQh fetkZ rFkk muds lkFk 25&30 vf/koDrk ek¡ cgu dh xkyh nsrs gq, ,oa ;g dgrs gq, fd j.Mh] lkyh rq>s NksMs+axs ugha ns[krk gw¡ dSls ukSdjh djrh gS] fdlh eftLVsªV dks dk;Z ugha djus nsaxs vkx yxk fn;k tk;sxk ns[krk gw¡ gkbZdksVZ vkSj ftyk tt rFkk rw vf/koDrkvksa dk D;k m[kkM+ ysxk rFkk ftUnk o eqnkZckn ds ukjs yxkrs gq, lHkh eftLVsªV U;k;ky;ksa ,oa dk;kZy;ksa dks cUn djk fn;k x;k 'kksj ljkcs] ukjsckth ds dkj.k U;k;ky;ksa ,oa dk;kZy;ksa esa dk;Z djus dk ekgkSy Hkh ugha jg x;k esjs pSECkj esa vk tkus ij Hkh pSEcj ds njokts ij 25&30 vf/koDrk vkdj ukjs ckth ,oa tksj&tksj ls eknjpksn] j.Mh vkfn xkyh nsus yxs esjs }kjk rqjar ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k] egksn;] o ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd] y[kuÅ dks nwjHkk"k ls lwpuk nh xbZ egksn; vki dks voxr djkuk gS fd vf/koDrk vuqjk

        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 Back to top