Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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     

Latest Legal News