IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, SURENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Smt. Zainab Fatima @ Rubi and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 223 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 46(4), 97, 98, 151, 107, 112, 437, 50, (1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 34, 120B - Explosive Act, 1884 - Section 3 - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 - Section 7 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21, 22, 226 - Habeas corpus - Illegal detention - Direction to produce corpus - Petition seeking direction to respondents to produce corpus before Hon'ble Court – In a case of personal bond no other person except very individual, who is coming forward is involved. [Para 35]
Finding of the Court: Writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable at instance of a person, who has got himself released as per procedure established by law on his own promise, to claim that he shall be made free from his own promise made in personal bond by issuing a writ of habeas corpus - Any such habeas corpus is held to be maintainable, this will give a handle to persons, specifically, violators of law to wriggle out from their own promise and even in a case of bail or remand to get themselves free from any condition/term as may be imposed on them while releasing them from physical custody and would thus, render entire administration of criminal justice ineffective and redundant – Court hold that petition after release of petitioners on personal bonds has become infructuous - Claim of petitioners that they are still in notional custody with their liberty curtailed and writ petition is still maintainable, is rejected - No such relief, i.e. release from custody, as claimed during course of argument by claiming that petition is still maintainable, can be granted to petitioners.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
1. Heard Sri D.S. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Sri Ravindra Sharma, Sri Sadab Ali, Sri Ravindra Sharma and Sri Vijay Mishra, learned counsels and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA-I for the State-respondents.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length on preliminary objection that present petition is no longer maintainable as admittedly the petitioners have been released on personal bonds and they are not in illegal detention and in such case the petition has become infructuous.
3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners disputed the same and submitted that even if petitioners are not in physical custody, the petition is still maintainable and has not been rendered infructuous as their movements are restricted due to personal bonds executed by them for their release.
4. Present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to produce the corpus before this Hon'ble Court and set them at liberty forthwith.
5. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are permanent resident of H.No. 52, Bhawani Nagar, Hapur Road, Meerut and being close relative of petitioner no. 1, who came at the house of the petitioner no. 1 from district Meerut and on 1.3.2023 petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were present at the house of the petitioner no. 1; petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are housewives and petitioner no. 3 is the minor daughter of the petitioner no. 2; at present, husband of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Khalid Azeem @ Ashraf (Ex-MLA) is in jail at District Jail-II, Bareilly and such the petitioner no. 1 is living at her Maika / parental house along with four minor children at Village Hatwa, Police Station Puramufti, District Prayagraj; on 1.3.2023 the petitioners were present at their house and on the said day at about 01:00 A.M. the police personnels of Police Station Puramufti and Dhoomanganj along with Special Task Force and Crime Branch Team raided the parental house of petitioner no. 1, where all the petitioners were residing breaking the front wall and the main door of the house even though no males were present in the house. The police personnel took rifle on forehead of petitioner no. 1 and also beaten the petitioners and other family members of the house with batons and sticks and also harassed the children at midnight. The petitioner no. 1 having four minor children who were all crying upon their mother being taken by the police; the police personnels of Police Station Puramufti and Dhoomanganj came at the parental house of the petitioner no. 1 without lady police and forcibly entered into the house of the petitioners after breaking wall and doors of the house and forcibly/illegally taking away the petitioners in their illegal custody in the night without showing any summon, warrant or any other documents; the police authorities arrested the petitioners being women in violation of Section 46(4) Cr.P.C.; the police personnels of the Police Station Puramufti and Dhoomanganj forcibly taking the petitioners into their illegal custody without disclosing the reason of their arrest/confinement; the petitioners are innocent lady and they are not involved in any case at any police station of district Prayagraj and district Meerut; the petitioners are not wanted in any criminal case; the police personnels of Police Station Puramufti and Dhoomanganj illegally detained the petitioners without any authority; the police illegally detained the petitioners since 1.3.2023 and till 3.3.2023 (i.e. till the date of filing of the petition) the police did not produce the petitioners before any Magistrate; the family members are searching the petitioners from one police station to another but no one is telling anything about the petitioners; on 2.3.2023 in all the newspapers news was published regarding arrest of the petitioners by
Rachna and another vs. State of U.P. and others
Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others
Chandra Dev Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another
Udaybhan Shuki vs. State of U.P. and others
Sandal Singh vs. District Magistrate and Superintendent, Dehradun
Zahir Ahmad vs. Ganga Prasad, A.S.D.M., Ballia and another
Ram Manohar Lohia and others vs. State of U.P. and others
Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Bhim Singh, MLA vs. State of J & K and others
Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration
Talib Hussain vs. State of J & K
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India
Manilal Chatterjee v. State of W.B.
Competent Authority v. Amritlal Chandmal Jain
Karimaben K. Bagad v. State of Gujarat
Home Secretary (Prison) and others vs. H. Nilofer Nisha
Sapmawia vs. Deputy Commissioner, Aijal
Bal Mukund Jaiswal v. Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi
B. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Orissa
Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling
SupremeToday
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.
Point of law : Where the custody of the petitioner corpus as been handed over as per a judicial order passed a Judicial Magistrate or a court of competent jurisdiction or a CWC constituted under the ....
A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable if the petitioner is in judicial custody under valid remand orders, and issues regarding the legality of arrest must be raised at the time of remand.
A writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted when the alleged illegal detention has de facto ceased before the application for the writ is made.
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.