Prakash Chand Lunia vs Union Of India
1997 Latest Caselaw 448 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, A.C.J.

(1) In this matter we had given opportunity to the respondent to file reply to the application under Section 482/Cr.P.C. being Crl. Misc. 2031 of 1997 on 22.4.1997, 25.4.1997 and 28.4.1997. Reply has not been filed.

(2) Not only the reply to Crl. Misc. 2031 of 1997 has been filed, reply to Crl. W. 122 of 1997 has not been filed, despite issuance of notice on 14.2.1997 when the notice was accepted by Mr. A.K. Vali, Advocate.

(3) Again on 7.4.1997, fresh notice was ordered to be issued for 21.4.1997. The matter again came up before us for hearing after Crl. Misc. 2031 of 1997 had been filed for early hearing of the matter.

(4) Mr. Vali had taken time to file reply, but nothing has been done so far.

(5) Mr. Bagai points out that according to the Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court, which are applicable to this Court, and so far they relate to writs of habeas corpus, which are found in part F(a), Rule 10 thereof reads as under: "10.ORDERS: On the returnable day of such rule or any day to which the hearing thereof may be adjourned if no cause is shown or if cause is shown and disallowed, the Court shall pass an order that the person or persons, improperly detained shall be set at liberty. If the cause is allowed, the rule shall be discharged."

(6) Inasmuch as no cause has been shown by the Union of India, prima facie it appears that there is a delay in consideration of the representation made by the Central Government.

(7) Accordingly we direct that the petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.