This court examined the stand of petitioner Vandana Yadav, who she was not in illegal confinement. No ground existed to make the rule absolute, and the writ petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed and the rule nisi was discharged.
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. - 66
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 328 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vandana Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Gaur
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Sri Ashish Kumar Gaur, learned counsel, has filed his appearance today on behalf of respondent no 4, which is taken on record.
In compliance with the rule nisi dated 26.08.2020, the detenuepetitioner, Vandana Yadav, has been produced before this Court on behalf of respondent no 4 Arjun Singh, who has been identified by his counsel Sri Ashish Kumar Gaur. The detenuepetitioner, Vandana Yadav, has been identified by respondent no. 4 Arjun Singh. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to ascertain her stand regarding the second and third petitioners' case of illegal confinement. Her stand, in this regard, is recorded verbatim :-
Q. Aapka naam?
A. Vandana.
Q. Aapke pitaji ka naam?
A. Rajeshwar Singh.
Q. Aapki aayu?
A. 19 saal.
Q. Aap kahan se aayi hain?
A. Quadarganj, Jila - Bareilly.
Q. Aap kiske paas se aayi hain?
A. Pati Arjun ke paas se.
Q. Aap kiske saath rehna chahti hain? A. Arjun ke saath.
Q. Kya aap mata-pita ke saath jayengi? A. Nahi.
Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Court has considered the stand of the detenue-petitioner, Vandana Yadav. It is evident that the she is not at all in illegal confinement. There is, thus, no ground to make the rule absolute. The rule is, therefore, discharged.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.9.2020 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was in illegal confinement.
Whether, on the stand of the detenue-petitioner, there is ground to make the rule nisi absolute.
Vandana Yadav And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
