0

In spite of the release warrant issued the person was kept in judicial custody – The High Court of Delhi to consider

Blog ,

+ W.P.(CRL) 2786/2023

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Dahiya v. The Director General of Prisons & Anr.

Appearance

Petitioner – Ms. Anannya Ghosh, Mr. Brian Henky Moses, Ms. Chitra Vats, Ms. Ioel Bose & Ms. Darika Sikka

Respondent – Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Alok Sharma & Mr. Vasu Agarwal

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

Order dated:16.11.2023

Introduction

A petition of Habeas corpus filled chasing to release for petitioner from Tihar jail, Delhi the High court in command was recently surprised over the continuing detention of corpus,  nothing the contention that he had already admitted to Bail.

Facts of the case

the petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail No.3 to update the nominal roll of the petitioner and in the form of Habeas Corpus seeking a direction to respondent No.1 for production and release of detune i.e petitioner, from illegal custody.

. It is further averred that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court issued release warrants against the petitioner, however, the jail authorities have refused to process his release. The CMM directed the Superintendent of Jail to provide case-wise details of pending cases, disposed of cases, acquitted cases, undergone cases, and convicted cases against the petitioner.

Respondent No.2 informed the Court of learned CMM that 704 cases were pending against the petitioner and a copy of the nominal roll dated 01.09.2023 was placed on record. It is averred that as per nominal roll, the petitioner is eligible to be released from further custody. Even the release warrants issued by the learned JMIC, Gurugram have not been complied with by the jail authorities.

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the communication by Deputy S.P. Central Jail Tihar, New Delhi to the learned CMM, Patiala House Court a list of list of 29 cases has been given in respect of which status and next date of hearing is not known. Learned counsel submits that these cases have been transferred to the court at Gurgram, Haryana, and the petitioner has already been acquitted. However, these cases are shown as pending in the list of cases before the jail Superintendent concerned

Accordingly, the respondent /Jail Superintendent concerned filed a status report wherein it is stated that 20 cases are pending against the petitioner in Delhi and that there is no record of such cases wherein he has been directed to be released on bail after furnishing personal bond, with or without surety. So is the position in respect of other 411 cases which are pending in other States, in respect of which production warrants are with the Tihar Jail.

Analysis of the court

Being of the view that there was no “legal justification” to keep the petitioner in custody, the court had directed that he be released “forthwith”, subject to verification of the Pairokar’s contention. A copy of the order was directed to be electronically communicated to the concerned JS.

We are constrained to note that due to the disputed status of cases against the petitioner, he has not been released and forced to stay behind bars – the bench in command

 

Taking a serious view of the matter, the Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur directed the Principal District & Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court and Saket Court (District South and South East both) to verify the status of cases against the petitioner.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click here to view judgment

0

Orissa High Court Deliberated on Habeas Corpus petition and highlighted the importance of proper oversight of Notary Publics and Legal Accountability

Blog, blog ,

Title: Partha Sarathi Das v/s State of Odisha & others WP(CRL)No.70 of 2023

Date of Decision: 10th October 2023

CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO and JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Introduction

The case under WP(CRL)No.70 of 2023 presents a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus filed by Partha Sarathi Das. He seeks a court directive to produce his wife, opposite party no. 6, before the Court and return her to his custody. The core issue revolves around the legality of the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no. 6, initially solemnized by a notary public.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner and opposite party no. 6 executed their marriage declaration before a Notary Public on 19.04.2023, asserting that they were married on the same day and were living as husband and wife.

On 09.05.2023, individuals identified as opposite parties nos. 7 and 8 allegedly deceived the petitioner and took away opposite party no. 6. They are claimed to have illegally confined her.

The petitioner and opposite party no. 6 were in a romantic relationship, belonged to the same gram panchayat, and studied at the same school.

Mr. Aswini Kumar Mohanty, the Notary Public who attested the marriage declaration, later admitted to notarizing the document legally untenably. He tendered an unconditional apology.

The Inspector in-charge of Baidyanathpur police station, Ganjam, reported that the opposite party no. 6 was staying voluntarily with her parents, denying illegal confinement.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court reviewed the case’s facts, which included the marriage declaration attested by the Notary Public. The Notary Public admitted to notarizing the document without proper legal grounds and issued an apology.

The court emphasized the need for training programs for notaries, urging the State Government to arrange training sessions to educate notaries about their functions and duties. Additionally, it stressed the importance of maintaining proper registers of notarized documents and verifying the identity of deponents. A report from the Inspector in-charge and a written statement from the opposite party no. 6 indicated that she was staying voluntarily with her parents and was not being illegally confined. Considering this evidence, the court found no grounds for illegal confinement or habeas corpus. The court underscored the necessity for notaries to uphold the law and maintain proper records, ensuring that people’s rights are not prejudiced.

In summary, this case highlights the importance of proper oversight of Notary Publics and the need for them to follow legal procedures diligently to prevent issues like the one presented in this case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Tarishi Verma

Click here to view Judgement 

 

 

0

Madras High Court orders Compensate to the illegal detention of the women and minor.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title:   Guru @ Paramaguru

                                               … Petitioner / Husband of the detenue                                     
                                              Versus

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy and  Anrs    

                                                                                  …Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 28.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR 

                                      AND

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Citation: H.C.P. (MD) No. 697 of 2023 

Introduction:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st  respondent to produce the person or body of the petitioner’s wife, namely, Saktheeswari, W/o.Guru @ Paramaguru, aged about 37 years from the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 4 before this Court and set her at liberty. When this Habeas Corpus Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents would submit that he has received instructions from Mr.Asra Garg, Inspector General of Police, Madurai South Zone, Madurai that he has completed enquiry only by 22.06.2023 as directed by this Court and he would file a report before this Court on 28.06.2023without fail. It is made clear that the evidence that has been produced before this Court by way of electronic form (pen drive) along with the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, shall be preserved by the Additional Registrar General of this Bench for future usage.

Facts: 

  • Summons were issued to a woman to appear in Police Station for examination in violation of section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Detention of three persons including a woman anda child aged 16 years for more than 24 hours.
  • Unwarranted registration of a criminal case against Tmt. P. Saktheeswari and Tr. S. Sethupathi in Thottiyam PS Cr.No.154 of 2023 u/s 294(b) IPC to screen the detention.
  • The petitioner, seeking production of his wife, namely, Saktheeswari, aged about 37 years, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition.
  • The husband of the detenue has beenarrayed as an accused, the respondents 2 to 4 had tortured her and she literally cried before this Court, saying that her and her children’s life are in danger at the hands of the respondents 2 to 4.

Issues:

  • Whether the summon issued to the women person is in violation of proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C?
  • Whethe the three persons were detained, including the women and a child aged about 16 years more than 24 hours without the authority of law?
  • Whether there was an unwarranted registration of criminal case against the detenue and another person one Sethuraman in Crime No.154 of 2023 under Section 294 IPC to screen the detention?

Legal Analysis:

The enquiry report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, is exhaustive with supportive and corroborative elements with circumstances and other statements that have been recorded from the persons or witnesses or police officials or police
men and produced before this Court in electronic form. Therefore, prima facie the Court has to accept the report, as there has been no reason to raise any doubt over the said report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

On three grounds, there has been a complete violation on the part of the respondent Police in dealing with the matter. The first one is that summon issued to the women person is in violation of proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C.. The second is that the three persons were detained, including the women and a child aged about 16 years more than 24 hours without the authority of law and the third one is an unwarranted registration of criminal case against the detenue and another person one Sethuraman in Crime No.154 of 2023 under Section 294 IPC to screen the detention.Since these three violations are serious in nature, which have been found out by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai in his enquiry and it has been stated in the report, we, having accepted the said report, feel that further follow up action by way of proper enquiry on these violations shall go on.

The Court directs the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy to take further action on the three violations pointed out by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai in his report dated 28.06.2023. In this regard, an independent team shall be formed to further enquire the matter on the basis of the evidences collected by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and accordingly, necessary disciplinary action shall be initiated against the erring police officials as well as the police men, who involved in such violation and such
disciplinary proceedings shall be permitted to reach its logical conclusion on merits.

Judgement:

Insofar as the illegal detention of the detenue women and minor ie., under the age of 18 is concerned, it is open to the detenue to seek for remedial measure, including the compensation before the concerned forum in the manner known to law. Since the detenue has been set at free and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents has submitted that there is no arrest in any case and she is not in the custody and she is free now, the detenue can either join with the family or can lead her comfortable life.
Therefore, this Habeas Corpus Petition can be closed to that extent, accordingly, it is closed.
However, insofar as the criminal case that has been registered against the husband of the detenue is concerned, it is open to the respondent Police to proceed with the investigation further in accordance with law and let the case be taken into its logical conclusion based on the evidences to be collected by the respondent Police. The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy shall file a compliance report with regard to the aforesaid directions after three months.
For the said purpose, The matter was posted on 03.10.2023. It is made clear that the evidence that has been produced before this Court by way of electronic form (pen drive) along with the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, shall be preserved by the Additional Registrar General of this Bench for future usage.

Conclusion:

When this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing on 15.06.2023, the respondent Police had produced the detenue before this Court, who had made some allegations against the respondent Police ie., the respondents 2 to 4 that in the name of enquiring the detenue in connection with the case, where the petitioner ie.,the husband of the detenue has been arrayed as an accused, the respondents 2 to 4 had tortured her and she literally cried before this Court, saying that her and her children’s life are indanger at the hands of the respondents 2 to 4. Since there was illegal detention of the respondents should compensate to the detenue.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement