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

2023 Supreme(All) 210

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Khan Saulat Hanif, Ravindra Sharma, Shadab Ali, Vijay Mishra.

Point of Law: 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.

Headnote:

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

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              Judicial Analysis

              SupremeToday

              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