This court dismissed a habeas corpus petition where the basic rights holder, during court interaction, affirmed her voluntary choice to reside with a different individual, thereby negating the grounds of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3349 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri C.M. Rai, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5 is accepted and taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 and perused the material brought on record.
Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has already been accepted by the learned A.G.A..
On interaction being made by this Court, Smt. Nirmala Guptapetitioner no.2 stated boldly in Court that she of her own free-will is residing with respondent no.4-Shailendra Kumar Gupta, her other son. She was quizzed as to whether she has been maltreated by respondent no.4, whereupon she frankly denied the same. When she was again quizzed about her wish to go with petitioner no.1Anand Kumar Gupta, she refused to go with him and submitted that her wish is to go and reside with respondent no.4-Shailendra Kumar Gupta. At the time of passing of this order petitioner no.1Anand Kumar Gupta and respondent no.4-Shailendra Kumar Gupta are also present in Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel.
Specific averments have been made by Smt. Nirmala Guptapetitioner no.2 by filing affidavit, wherein under paragraph nos.2 and 3, things have been brought to the knowledge of this Court.
In view of the statement given under para 2 and 3 and interaction with the corpus-Smt. Nirmala Gupta-petitioner no.2, the allegations made in this habeas corpus writ petition don't carry force.
This habeas corpus petition being misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 20.8.2018/S Rawat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a habeas corpus petition survives in light of the detained person's statement that they wish to reside with another individual.
Whether the petitioner proved illegal deprivation of liberty.
Anand Kumar Gupta
Nirmala Gupta
State Of U.P.
Shailendra Kumar Gupta
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
