Dismissed¶15

Sunil Thru. His Wife Smt. Preeti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2025HABC/227/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus writ petition; detenue not in unlawful detention; detenue residing at sister's house of his own free will (A.G.A. submission); next friend sold detenue's ancestral property recorded in name of detenue Sunil Kumar; respondent nos. 8 and 9; petition declared infructuous as dispute pertains to civil rights; petitioner's counsel absent on successive dates; last opportunity given on 03.01.2025; dismissal for want of prosecution; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Court No. 11; Rajnish Kumar, J.; Badrul Hasan A.G.A.; Ram Mohan Mishra; Alok Kumar holding brief.

What did the court decide?

The court concluded that the detenue is not in unlawful detention, inferring this from the fact that none is appearing on his behalf. ¶14

Sunil Thru. His Wife Smt. Preeti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 227 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil Thru. His Wife Smt. Preeti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 8 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Pandey,Abhishek Mishra,Sunil Dixit

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Verma,Ashutosh Dwivedi,Ram Mohan Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶7

List is being revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner, whereas the learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ram Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the private-respondent are present.

¶8

On the previous occasion, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the following order was passed on 03.01.2025:

¶9

"1. No one is present for the petitioner when this petition is called out, while Shri Ram Mohan Mishra is present for respondent nos. 5 to 7 and informs that the instant petition has become infructuous as the dispute is pertaining to the civil rights.

¶10

2. Learned A.G.A. informs that in pursuance of earlier direction of this Court instructions have been procured.

¶11

3. Since no one is present for the petitioner, a last opportunity is provided to learned counsel for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, failing which, the petition may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶12

4. List this case, accordingly, on 29.01.2025."

¶13

Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, submits that the detenue is residing at his sister's house with his own free will. He further submits that the respondent nos.8 and 9 had informed that the next friend of the deteue has sold ancestral property recorded in the name of the detenue, Sunil Kumar.

¶14

In view of above, it is apparent that the detenue is not in unlawful detention, therefore, none is appearing on his behalf.

¶15

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶16

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Haseen U.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Thru. His Wife Smt. Preeti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Thru. His Wife Smt. Preeti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt Ram Keshori Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Deepa Pathak Thru. Her Husband Satya Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Ram Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. of Home and Another

Rajendra Kumar and Others Vs District and Session Judge, Pratapgarh and Others