Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Sharukh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 8 of 2021
Decided On : 19-04-2021
Vinod Sharma, Advocate, M.S. Bhandari, Advocate, J.S. Virk, Advocate
A writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued when the detention is authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction, even if the order of remand is illegal.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The petitioner was allegedly detained for offences under Sections 8, 22, and 60 of the Act. The court did not provide a detailed analysis of the provisions but referred to them in the context of the petitioner's detention.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition seeking the production of Sahrukh, who was allegedly illegally detained for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested after illegal Buprenorphine injections were recovered from his personal search. A charge-sheet was filed against him. The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case. The State argued that the petitioner was in custody in pursuance of a judicial order.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court and held that a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued when the detention is authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court emphasized that even an illegal order of judicial remand does not amount to illegal detention. The court concluded that the present petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is without force and dismissed the petition at the admission stage.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued when the detention is authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction, even if the order of remand is illegal.
Result: The petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - The present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus, directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, respondent No. 2, and the Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali Roorkee, DistrictHaridwar, respondent No. 3, to produce the corpus of Sahrukh, the petitioner, who has been illegally detained by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in Case Crime No. 787 of 2019, registered with Police Station-Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offences under Sections 8,22, 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1985").
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 15.12.2019, at about 20:40 hours, one thousand illegal Buprenorphine injections, a commercial quantity, were recovered from the personal search of the petitioner, conducted in the presence of the Circle Officer of Police, a Gazetted Officer. The petitioner was arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him.
3. Heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
4. Mr. Vinod Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on 30.05.2016, on the complaint of the father of the petitioner, one Jahid was arrested by the police under the provisions of the Act, 1985. After registration of the Case Crime No.72 of 2016 against the said Jahid, he was released on bail, and after releasing on bail, the said Jahid, along with the then Sub Inspector Sanjay Singh Negi, SOG Roorkee, District Haridwar, hatched a conspiracy and roped the petitioner in the present case.
5. Mr. Vinod Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of In the Matter of Madhu Limaye and others, (1969) 1 SCC 292, State of Punjab vs. Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar and others, (2011) 14 SCC 770, Shafi Mohd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311, Ashok Chauhan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 2 UD 191, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ACE Multi Axes, (2018) 2 SCC 158, Home Secretary (Prison) and others vs. H. Nilofer Nisha, (2020) 14 SCC 161, and Paramveer Singh Saini vs. Baljeet Singh and others, (2021) 1 SCC 184, contended that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are having illegal custody of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, submitted that the petitioner is in custody in pursuance of a judicial order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are having illegal custody of the petitioner.
7. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another vs. N.R. Vairamani and another, (2004) AIR SC 4778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation.
8. In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat and others, (1987) 1 SCC 213, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case.
9. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that a little difference in fact or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.
10. Therefore, each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect.
11. Coming now to the facts of the present case. The facts of the present matter are quite different to the facts of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, herein, is in custody in pursuance of the judicial order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Act, 1985.
