Dismissed

Meena Gangwar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2018HABC/3561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of habeas corpus petition by holding that relinquished custody of a detainee to a third party precludes a claim of illegal detention. Petitioner directed to raise safety concerns to the competent authority within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to file application with C.J.M. Bareilly within ten days if safety concerns exist.

Meena Gangwar and Another Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3561 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Meena Gangwar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar through her husband Vishesh Joshi with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners was quizzed about the order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in relation to the custody of the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar whereby the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar was entrusted to Smt. Javitri Devi, the mother of the corpus, respondent no.4 to keep with her and ensure her safety. That way, the claim that the corpus has been illegally detained by respondent no.4 is not sustainable.

¶8

In the habeas corpus matters, where the custody of the detenue has been entrusted to a particular person having sanction and approval of law, the same cannot be rendered illegal detention.

¶9

Here vide order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, custody of the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar has been entrusted to respondent no.4. That way, the custody of the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar cannot be termed with illegality. Therefore, issuance of writ, order or direction for production of the corpus would not be suffice to serve the interest of justice.

¶10

However, it has been claimed that the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar has been put to a lot of embarrassment and annoyance by respondent nos.3 and 4 and there is possibility that she may be killed by them. If that is the case petitioner no.1 may raise the same with the competent forum be it administrative or judicial, particularly C.J.M. Bareilly who has passed the custodial order regarding the corpus Smt. Meena Gangwar.

¶11

In case of apprehension of petitioner no.1 as above, appropriate application may be moved within ten days from today. In case any such application is moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the C.J.M. Bareilly by speaking and reasoned order.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is disposed of.

¶13

The observation made in this order will not touch on merits of the case.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.8.2018

¶15

rkg

Meena Gangwar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Gangwar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Israr Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Umarani Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shambhavi Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others