Allowed

Disha Choudhary v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2021WPHC/21/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition challenging illegal detention, the Court directed the release of the petitioner from central prison custody, relying on prior court orders and the Prisoners Act, while allowing her to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on a future date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner detained in Central Prison directed to be released from custody. Petitioner to appear before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 15.03.2021 at 11:00 a.m.

Disha Choudhary Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.21 OF 2021

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

Disha Choudhary D/o Vasant Choudhary Aged about 33 years R/a. No.577/B, 2^nd Floor Outer Ring Road, Teachers Colony Koramangala Bengaluru-560034 Presently Detain in Central Prison Parappana Agrahara Bengaluru – 560100.

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

(By Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil – Sr. Counsel for Sri. Mahamad Tahir .A - Advocate)

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Dept. of Home & Prisons Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶15

The Inspector General of Police (Prisons) Seshadri Road Bengaluru – 560 009.

¶16

¶17

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prisons) Central Prison Parappana Agrahara Bengaluru – 560 100.

¶18

The Chief Superintendent Central Prison Parappana Agrahara Bengaluru – 560 100.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

(By Sri. V.S. Hegde – SPP – II for Respondents)

¶21

This Writ Petition(HC) is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus against the Respondents to produce the detenue (Petitioner) before this Court and release her from the illegal detention of the Respondents.

¶22

This Writ Petition (HC) coming on for orders, this day, NAGARATHNA J. , made the following:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Habeas Corpus writ petition is filed by the detenue herself, seeking her production before this court and to release her from illegal detention at the hands of the respondents.

¶25

Yesterday, when this matter was listed before

¶26

this Court, notices were ordered to the respondents. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepted

¶27

¶28

notice and sought time to get instructions in the matter. Hence, it is listed today.

¶29

This petition was taken up in the pre-lunch session and after hearing arguments of Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner / detenue and Learned SPP-II, respondent authorities were directed to produce the detenue before this court in the post-lunch session.

¶30

In the post-lunch session, the petitioner / detenue, Smt. Disha Chowdary has been produced before this court.

¶31

Learned SPP-II who has appeared on behalf of the respondents, drew our attention to the fact that the body warrant issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru (‘Commission’ for short) has been extended till 15.03.2021 and further, a direction was issued on 24.02.2021 to the jail authorities not to release the detenue until further orders to be passed by the Commission and directed her to be produced before the

¶32

¶33

Commission on 15.03.2021 at 11.00 a.m. Therefore,

¶34

the respondent authorities, in compliance of the said order, did not release the petitioner / detenue despite the release orders issued by the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in Spl. CC No.800/2018 on 08.02.2021, order dated 25.02.2021 passed in PCR No.1427/2016 in C.C.No.1475/2017, order dated 25.02.2021 passed in PCR No.2099/2016 in C.C.No.6438/2017 and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in PCR No.4497/2017 in C.C.No.10589/2017, which have been produced by the petitioner along with the memorandum of writ petition.

¶35

Learned SPP-II submitted that the respondent authorities were in a dilemma with regard to the noncompliance of the direction issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the context of compliance with the aforesaid release orders and hence, the petitioner / detenue was not released as such.

¶36

¶37

In response to the said submission, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 and particularly to Section 6 of the said Act, which deals with the duty of the Officer-in-charge of a prison when an order has been passed under Section 3 of the said Act, which deals with power of Courts to require appearance of prisoners to give evidence or answer a charge.

¶38

He submitted that the respondent authorities ought to have complied with the release order issued in the afore-mentioned cases as well, by filing a report in that regard as per Section 6 of the Prisoners Act, 1955. Therefore, he submitted that since this petition has been filed by way of a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / detenue, who has been produced before this court, may be released.

¶39

¶40

In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the prayer sought for by the petitioner in this petition has been complied with by the respondents, having regard to the aforesaid orders passed by the respective courts. We accordingly order that the petitioner / detenue who is produced before this Court be released, despite the body warrant issued against her in Execution Case No.170/2020 (C.C.No.438/2019) dated 24.02.2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, if she is not in judicial custody in any other case. In this context, we place reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of GAURAV GOEL vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.(HC) No.83/2015 disposed of on 23.06.2015 (Annexure-“C”).

¶41

Having regard to the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities to also comply with the provisions of Section 6 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 vis-à-vis the order dated 24.02.2021

¶42

¶43

issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if necessary.

¶44

However, the petitioner / detenue shall appear

¶45

before the concerned Courts wherever body warrants have been issued as against her, and particularly before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, on 15.03.2021

¶46

at 11.00 a.m.

¶47

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶48

A copy of this order be sent to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, forthwith.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

BVNJ & NSSGJ : WPHC.21/2021 15.03.2021

¶54

ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO

¶55

This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 10.03.2021.

¶56

This morning (15.03.2021), a memo was filed by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in order to bring to the notice of this Court that the order remanding the petitioner to judicial custody itself is illegal and the same was not intimated to the Prison Authorities. Further, learned senior counsel sought to bring to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was stated to be in judicial custody in two cases, but the order sending her to judicial custody in those cases was illegal and hence, her detention was also illegal.

¶57

On the said submission made by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, matter was ordered to be listed for being spoken to at 2.30 p.m. today.

¶58

We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for the respondents.

¶59

¶60

During the course of submissions, it is brought to our notice by learned SPP-II that the petitioner/detenue is indeed in judicial custody pursuant to the orders passed in Spl. C.C. No.1142/2019 on 16.01.2021 and Spl. C.C.No.1240/2019 on the very same date. Therefore, the order dated 10.03.2021 would not call for any modification. However, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was quick to point out that those orders remanding her to judicial custody are per se illegal, as in those cases she was already on bail.

¶61

In the circumstances, the petitioner/detenue is at

¶62

liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

PKS

Disha Choudhary v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Disha Choudhary v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a M Gangappa Since Deceased Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Budunuru Ramachandra Vs the Chief Secretary

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom) Vs Sri. Rangaiah. R

M/S Komtech Plastic Technologies Vs Mr. G. Raju

Smt Geetha G Rao Vs Sri Naveen Nagaraja

Smt Geetha G Rao Vs Sri Naveen Nagaraja