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
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:
(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:
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors.
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs.State of Gujarat and Ors.
Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr.
State of Maharashtra and others v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee
Saurabh Kumar through his father Vs. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr.
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 do....
The failure to disclose grounds for arrest and non-compliance with procedural requirements rendered the detention illegal, warranting intervention via habeas corpus.
The detention of an individual beyond 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal.
The requirement to provide written grounds for arrest is a constitutional mandate; failing this renders the arrest and consequent remand illegal, entitling the individual to immediate release.
Sec. 437 of Code makes a provision for persons who have been arrested in a non-bailable offence and have been produced before a Magistrate.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.