Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

"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