Allahabad High Court
Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 187 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers which are quoted for ready reference-:
"(i) That a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued by this Hon'ble Court, directing the respondents to ensure the physical presence of the corpus petitioner in order of safeguard the fundamental rights of the corpus petitioner in order to meet the ends of justice;
(ii) That the corpus petitioner be released at liberty and liberty of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India be granted by this Hon'ble Court;
(iii) That during the pendency of the present writ petition, criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the above said F.I.R. No. 385/2019 and 697/2019 be stayed;
(iv) To direct the respondents No. 3 & 7 to release the petitioner from the judicial custody and also to quash all the charges (if any) framed over the petitioner during the criminal proceedings under the present F.I.R. No. 385/2019 and 697/2019."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the order dated 19.11.2020 by which remand for arrest of the petitioner on the request of the prosecution. It is said to be illegal having been passed in a mechanical manner. The Court asked the counsel as to whether the order aforesaid has been challenged or not. Learned counsel is fair enough to state that challenge to the order has not been made. In absence of it, the remand order will stand and thereby a writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable because the custody of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal.
The issue has been threshold discussed by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Rachna and another Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 362 of 2020 decided by the judgment dated 08.03.2021 on the maintainability of the writ petition.
In the light of the judgment aforesaid and taking note of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, without challenge to the remand order, the custody of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and thereby writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable.
It is also a fact that much progress has been made after the remand order. The bail application submitted by him has already been dismissed, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner himself.
Taking overall facts into consideration, we find writ not to be maintainable for the prayers quoted above.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
Nirmal Sinha
