Dismissed

Smt. Suneeta @ Shetal (Corpus) v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2020HABC/984/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the High Court examined the detention of a minor at a girls' shelter. Finding that the detention was under the orders of a criminal court and the Bal Kalyan Samiti under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court held there was no illegal deprivation of liberty. The petition was dismissed for failing to show unlawful detention.

What did the court decide?

The writ of habeas corpus is dismissed in limine. The petitioner is directed to be sent to Rajkiya Mahila Sharnalay.

Smt. Suneeta @ Shetal (Corpus) Vs State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 984 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Suneeta @ Shetal (Corpus) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State Authorities.

¶6

The petitioner has applied for the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release her from the illegal detention of Rajkiya Mahila Sharnalay, (Nari Niketan) Bareilly. The petition has been filed through the alleged husband of the petitioner i.e. Lala Ram.

¶7

It appears that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Bhagwati, respondent No.5 lodged a first information report on 14.05.2019 against Lala Ram under Section 363 IPC alleging that he has enticed away her daughter i.e. the petitioner, who is a minor as her date of birth is 08.07.2004.

¶8

On the basis of the aforesaid FIR the matter was investigated and a charge sheet has been submitted against Lala Ram. Now the trial is pending in Case Crime No.1798 of 2019 under Section 363 IPC.

¶9

At the same time, Bal Kalyan Samiti, Budaun after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the pendency of the above criminal case directed the Sub-Inspector to take the petitioner into her custody and to lodge her in the Rajkiya Mahila Sharnalay, (Nari Niketan) Bareilly.

¶10

The C.J.M. in the above trial also passed an order on 05.10.2019 that as prima facie the petitioner is a minor as her date of birth is 08.07.2004, it is necessary that she should be kept in Rajkiya Mahila Sharnalay, (Nari Niketan) Bareilly.

¶11

None of the above orders are under challenge in any

¶12

court of law.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has been sent to the Rajkiya Mahila Sharnalay, (Nari Niketan) Bareilly under the orders of the court and the Bal Kalyan Samiti constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Accordingly, the petitioner is not in any unlawful custody or detention.

¶14

The issue as to whether the petitioner is actually a minor or has attained maturity is a matter which has to be dealt with if necessary in the aforesaid trial.

¶15

It is important to note that writ of habeas corpus is by way of an extraordinary remedy and can be invoked if a person is wrongly arrested or is illegally detained to secure his/her liberty. Therefore, wrongful deprivation of personal liberty is sine qua non for issuing the writ of habeas corpus.

¶16

In view of above, we are of the opinion that as the petitioner has failed to establish her unlawful detention the writ of habeas corpus would not lie. It is accordingly, dismissed in limine with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to other legal remedies as may be advised.

¶17

The petitioner, who is present in court, is directed to be sent Rajkiya Mahila Sharnalay, (Nari Niketan) Bareilly.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.1.2020 piyush

Smt. Suneeta @ Shetal (Corpus) v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suneeta @ Shetal (Corpus) v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Anshika Devi Alias Rakhi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Puja Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Kumari Reema Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others