Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Telangana High Court Declares Detention Illegal: Violation of Procedure in Habeas Corpus Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Telangana High Court declared the detention of a petitioner's husband as illegal, citing a blatant violation of procedural requirements and guidelines. The case involved allegations of an arrest made without adhering to the due procedure laid down under the law, raising concerns over compliance with essential legal safeguards.

The bench, comprising Justices K. Lakshman and K. Sujana, delivered the verdict on September 27, 2023. The case centered on a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Smt. Dubashi Swapana against the State of Telangana.

The court observed that the arrest of the petitioner's husband was conducted without adhering to the procedure prescribed by law and failed to comply with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the D.K. Basu case. The judgment stated, "The arrest of the husband of the petitioner is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an illegal detention."

Additionally, the court raised concerns about the notice issued under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), noting that the respondents provided no satisfactory explanation regarding its issuance and service. The judgment remarked, "There is no mention about the date, time, and place of service of the said notice on the detenu. The contention of the respondents that they followed the entire procedure laid down under law while arresting the husband of the petitioner is untenable."

As a result of the ruling, the Superintendent of District Jail, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, was added as respondent No. 7 in the case. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were directed to release Dubashi Devender, the husband of the petitioner, immediately.

However, the court granted respondents the liberty to strictly follow the procedure laid down under the law while conducting investigations in NIA Case No. RC-01/2021/NIA/RPR, dated 18.03.2021.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and safeguarding the rights of detainees, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Date of Decision: 27 September, 2023

Smt. Dubashi Swapana   vs The State of Telangana etc.   

 

Latest Legal News