Dismissed

Imran v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jan 2011CRWP/2226/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking release of alleged detainees in illegal custody. Court appointed Warrant Officer to locate them, but petitioner failed to defray expenses. Report showed detainees were not found. Petition dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous due to petitioner's failure to fund search and lack of evidence regarding illegal custody.

Imran Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Crl. W.P. No. 2226 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. W.P. No. 2226 of 2010

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.01.2011

Imran

..........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶10

..........Respondents

¶11

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present:None for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶16

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf Imran for issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to release/produce the detenues detailed in para No.5 of the petition, who are in the illegal custody of respondents No.3 and 4.

¶17

While issuing notice of motion on 25.11.2010, Warrant Officer was also appointed and was directed to visit the place (s) as may be pointed out by the petitioner, in order to locate the said detenues.

¶18

Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record.

¶19

In compliance of directions issued by this Court on 25.11.2010, Warrant Officer has submitted his report dated 4.12.2010, wherein, he has stated that on 26.11.2010, the petitioner came to him and stated that

¶20

(2)

¶21

Crl. W.P. No. 2226 of 2010

¶22

presently he had no money to meet the expenses of conveyance for Warrant Officer and whenever he would have the money, he would come for the purpose. The petitioner had also given in writing in this regard, but he did not turn up and money was also not deposited, therefore, he could not visit the spot. .

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that SDM, Phillaur along with Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh and Naib Tehsildar, who is present in Court, visited the spot and statements of various persons were recorded. The detenues mentioned in the petition were not found present at the spot. It has also been mentioned in the reply that there is no incident of any alleged bounded labour and after recording the statements of the persons present there, a detailed inquiry report was prepared by SDM, Phillaur. None of the persons mentioned in the writ petition were found in the illegal custody of respondents No.3 and 4.

¶24

In view of the above as well as reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, the present petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

¶25

.January 03, 2011 pooja

¶26

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶27

Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No

Imran v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kamal Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kulwinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.