In a habeas corpus petition, the court found the petitioner had voluntarily returned to her parental home. Consequently, the court held there was no illegal confinement, discharged the rule nisi, and dismissed the writ petition.
Rule nisi discharged; habeas corpus petition dismissed.
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. - 84 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 156 of 2020 Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj,Ramsagar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 (husband), Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Arvind Kumar Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 (mother of the petitioner no. 2)
Pursuant to the rule nisi issued earlier the petitioner no. 2 has been brought in Court accompanied by Mohd. Saqir, SubInspector, P.S. Koirauna, District Bhadohi and Ms. Rati Trivedi, Head Constable (Lady).
Learned Additional Government Advocate on making enquiry from the petitioner no. 2 has submitted that she has stated that she was residing at her brother's place in Mumbai from where she has come back to her parental home at Bhadohi. From her parental home at Bhadohi, she has been brought before the Court. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has stated that she is aged about 32 years and she has completed her graduation and presently she is pursuing further studies. She has also stated that she does not desire to go to her husband's place and wishes to go back her parental home at Bhadohi along with her minor daughter namely Araddhya who is aged about five years. She has clearly stated that she is staying at her parental home without any kind of threat or coercion.
Upon a consideration of the stand taken by the petitioner no. 2 (detenu), it is evident that she is not in any kind of illegal confinement and she is staying with the respondent no. 4 (her mother) on her own free will.
Having regard to the aforesaid, there is no reason to make the rule nisi absolute. It is accordingly discharged.
The writ petition stands accordingly dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits that the petitioner has a bank account in which her name is shown as Lalita K. Yadav and that the amount deposited pursuant to the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by this Court may be released to her by means of a cheque made in the name of Lalita K. Yadav.
It would be open to the petitioner no. 2 to make necessary application before the Registrar General along with self attested copy of the bank pass book for the said purpose.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Pratima
(Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rule nisi in the habeas corpus petition should be made absolute given the petitioner's voluntary residence.
Whether personal liberty has been infringed upon the detenu.
Lalji Yadav
State of U.P.
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
