High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 seeking release of a detenue. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition, resulting in its disposal as withdrawn. The Judge refused to adjudicate on the apprehension regarding false charges.
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1861 of 2010
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1861 of 2010
Date of Decision: 7.1.2011
Rajesh
…Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, District Panipat and Others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3.
Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of detenue Suresh, brother of the petitioner, who was allegedly picked up by respondent No.2-Station House Officer, Police Station Matlaudha, District Panipat, at the instance of respondents No.3 to 5.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that at present the petitioner is not in custody of anyone and he is residing at his house. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner and his brother have been
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1861 of 2010 2
released from the Jail, prematurely, because of their good conduct.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents intend to involve them in a false case to deprive them the benefit of premature release from the jail as their antecedents will be eclipsed and they will no longer have good conduct to their credit.
This Court is of the view that for this apprehension, the petitioner may approach any other appropriate Forum by filing any other application. This Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus, cannot answer this relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition.
As prayed, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge
January 7, 2011 “ DK ”
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could withdraw the filed writ petition
Whether the Court could hear the apprehension about false charges
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh
The Superintendent of Police, District Panipat
Others
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
