“Allahabad High Court Rejects Habeas Corpus Petition, Citing Lack of Grounds Challenging Remand Order”

157
0
Share:
advocate judicial party Advocates live steel v properly Evidence Divorce Property Factual Bail FIR 376 Bail bail Child Allahabad High Cour 1989 Appointment Investigation Cheque Fear mother IIIT court Law application Acquittal 29A Marriage Maintenance Dowry Application dowryMarriage bail Land Earning Justice Written Statement Maintenance Summoning Rape Video Death Bail Guilty jurisdiction 138Assault investigation Temple bail Wife velectricity Child Drinking final murder Love Cheque Throwing Brick Husband NDPS Case  allahabad addition preliminary evidence Cheque Bounce murder evidence grievances dowry 210 consideration order corporation advocate certificate marriage application mechanical maintenance financial evidence electricity wife probation bail individual investigation

In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Judges Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, delivered a significant judgement in a Habeas Corpus writ petition. The case, involving petitioner Golu @ Arun Patel seeking release from judicial custody, took an interesting turn when the court questioned the maintainability of the petition.

During the proceedings, the State raised objections regarding the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition. Instead of addressing the merits of the case, the Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to focus on the issue of maintainability. The primary prayer in the petitioner’s plea was to secure the production and release of Golu @ Arun Patel from judicial confinement.

The crucial aspect of this judgement revolved around the absence of grounds challenging the legality or jurisdiction of the remand order. The Court noted that the petitioner’s bail application had been rejected by the lower court on 11th July 2023. Shockingly, the petitioner’s counsel failed to disclose this fact during the arguments. The court deemed this concealment a deliberate and intentional attempt to hide a material fact.

The Court, citing legal precedents, emphasized that a writ of Habeas Corpus should not be entertained when a person is in judicial custody pursuant to a valid order of remand. Furthermore, the absence of any challenge to the remand order in the petitioner’s plea further weakened the case.

In light of these observations, the High Court ultimately rejected the Habeas Corpus petition. However, it did not stop there; the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee as a consequence of the counsel’s failure to provide full and transparent information during the proceedings.

Date of Decision: 06/09/2023

Golu @ Arun Patel vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others     

Download Judgment

Share: