Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

"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