Petitioner sought roving writ for release of another detenu. Court dismissed petition as infructuous because the alleged detenu had already been released.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Writ Petition No. 110 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.01.2011
Raj Kumar
..... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and others.
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Jasmandeep, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab for respondent-State.
JORA SINGH, J (ORAL)
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a roving writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the release of detenu (Sohan Pal).
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the alleged detenu has since been released. Hence, the present petition has become infructuous.
Disposed of as rendered infructuous.
JANUARY 18, 2011 (JORA SINGH) sham JUDGE
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar
State of Punjab
Jora Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
