Dismissed

Sameer L. Sayed v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2007WP/1098/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the petitioner's wife was dismissed. The court held that there is no material to suggest illegal detention as the wife voluntarily travelled to and resides in Saudi Arabia.

What did the court decide?

Writ of habeas corpus dismissed; petition rejected on the ground that the wife is in Saudi Arabia voluntarily.

Sameer L. Sayed Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

[1]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1098 OF 2007

¶3

 Sameer L. Sayed .... Petitioner
 Vs.

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents

¶5

 None present for the Petitioner.

¶6

 Ms Shyamli Hajela i/b M/s. H & M Legal
 Associates for the Respondent Nos.9 & 10.

¶7

 Ms A.S. Pai, APP, for the Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
 Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶9

DATED: OCTOBER 04, 2007

¶10

P.C:

¶11

 1. None present for the petitioner. Learned APP

¶12

 present for the State and Advocate Ms Shyamli Hajela
 present for the respondent Nos.9 and 10.

¶13

 2. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.9 and 10

¶14

 states that the copy of the affidavit of the concerned
 lady, who is claimed to be the wife of the petitioner,
 discloses that she out of her own free will has
 travelled to Saudi Arabia along with her family and she
 is residing in Saudi Arabia out of her own free will and
 she has no intention to return to India at the present.
 She being a major in age, according to the learned
 Advocate, there is no case made out for issuing the writ

¶15

[2]

¶16

 of habeas corpus against the respondents for production
 of the concerned lady as she has not been illegally
 detained as such by any of the respondents and on the
 contrary, she is staying in Saudi Arabia out of her own
 free will.

¶17

 3. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.9 and 10
 has also produced on record the copy of the affidavit
 stated to have been sworn by the concerned lady before
 the attache to the Embassy of India, Riyadh, Saudi
 Arabia. On perusal of the said affidavit and on going
 through the other annexures to the petition, it is
 apparent that the affidavit appears to have been sworn
 by the concerned lady informing that she is in Saudi
 Arabia out of her own free will and has not been
 detained by the respondents. Consequently, there is no
 case for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus
 against the respondents for production of the concerned

¶18

 lady. The petition, therefore, is rejected.

¶19

 (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)

¶20

 sjs/O7cwp1098.7

Sameer L. Sayed v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer L. Sayed v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Bhiwandi Video Parlour Exhibitors . and Ors. . Vs State of Maharashtra . and Ors. .

Kailas Gangaram Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Madhav Bhadge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaniben Lahanubai Kakwa Vs Chandrakant Parekh and Anr.

Rajesh Vijaysinh Gujar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Narendra Kumar Mittal Vs State of Maharashtra