The High Court in Public Case No. 1170 of 2019 dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking quashing of remand orders and production of the petitioner. The Court held that the custody was not prima facie unlawful, and ordinary remedies existed.
Impugned remand orders were left in force; writ for production not issued.
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. - 29
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1170 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kumari Reema Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
The petitioners have preferred this petition for the quashing of the remand orders dated 03.08.2019 and 10.10.2019 passed by the C.J.M. in Case Crime No. 148 of 2019 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh and for the issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the corpus of petitioner No.1 before the Court and to handover her custody to her family members i.e. her mother, petitioner No.2.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that an F.I.R. was lodged against the younger sister of petitioner No.1 i.e. Seema who was a minor but the police has incorrectly arrested petitioner No.1 and has obtained her remand.
The order of remand dated 10.10.2019 clearly states that petitioner No.1 Reema has been prima-facie found to be involved in the offence and there is sufficient evidence in this regard. It is for this reason, the remand has been accepted.
Learned A.G.A. submits that according to his instructions, a charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner No.1. Merely for the reason that in the F.I.R., the name of younger sister Seema is mentioned, the arrest of petitioner No.1 is not illegal.
Ordinarily, the orders of remand cannot be directly challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners have effective remedies to challenge the same in an appropriate forum.
It is important to mention here that a writ of habeas corpus lies only when custody of any person on the face of it is shown to
be unlawful which is not the case herein.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this is not a fit case where we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction either to quash the impugned orders of remand or to issue any writ of habeas corpus.
The Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Nirmal_Sinha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this petition is a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to quash remand orders or issue habeas corpus.
Whether the habeas corpus remedy is available when custody is not shown to be unlawful on the face of it.
Kumari Reema Yadav
Other Petitioner
State Of U.P.
Other Respondents
Pankaj Mithal
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
