JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Before hearing the arguments on merits, learned AGA have objected regarding the ‘maintainability’ of instant Habeas Corpus writ petition, allegedly filed by Golu @ Arun Patel, the petitioner. Thus the Court has directed the counsel for the petitioner to advance his argument with regard to the ‘maintainability’ of the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition, at the admission stage itself, so that the same shall be decided at the threshold stage.

3. Before appreciating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the ‘maintainability’, it is imperative to spell out the ‘prayer’ sought by the petitioner in the instant habeas corpus writ petition coupled with the facts of the case, which has allegedly given rise to this writ petition:-

4. The prayer sought by the petitioner is that :

“i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the corpus namely, Golu @ Arun Patel before this Hon’ble Court and to set free the corpus namely Golu @ Arun Patel at his own liberty i