Dismissed

Km. Sangeeta (Corpus) v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2020HABC/282/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition. The Court recorded that the petitioner's statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, being voluntary, negated any case of illegal confinement. Withstanding repeated attempts to hold the petitioner, the rule nisi was discharged.

What did the court decide?

Rule nisi was discharged and the writ petition was dismissed.

Km. Sangeeta (Corpus) Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 282 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Km. Sangeeta (Corpus) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Mishra,Satyendra Narayan Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bishram Tiwari,Om Prakash Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

Sri Bishram Tiwari, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no 7, which is taken on record.

¶7

In this case, a rule nisi was issued and the statement of the detenue, Km. Sangeeta, was ordered to be recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, has recorded the statement of Km. Sangeeta on a commission issued by this Court and returned that commission with the recorded statement dated 19.06.2020. The statement shows that Km. Sangeeta is staying with respondent no. 4, Siddhu Nonia alias Suraj, son of Shambhu Nonia, according to her free will and wish. Going by the statement of the prosecutrix, recorded on commission by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, no case of illegal confinement is made out.

¶8

It must be recorded here that this petition has been adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.08.2020, 27.08.2020 and again, on 31.08.2020, in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 31.08.2020 makes it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted and the matter will be disposed of. Again, as a matter of indulgence to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition was adjourned on 02.09.2020. Today, when the matter is called on,

¶9

no one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶10

Looking to the stand taken by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, who has examined her on commission, this Court does not find any good ground to make the rule nisi , absolute. The rule is, therefore, discharged.

¶11

In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 22.9.2020 I. Batabyal

Km. Sangeeta (Corpus) v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Sangeeta (Corpus) v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vijendra Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Sahista and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Dev Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Soniya Sharma Alias Soniya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manvi @ Aarohi (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others