Jharkhand High Court
Rukhmani Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 4 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) (Hb) (D.B.) No. 170 of 2025
---------
Rukhmani Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
-----------
th
02/Dated: 04 March, 2025
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the case has
been filed on 28.02.2025 and the case was mentioned on 03.03.2025 i.e.
yesterday only. This Court, considering the issue of illegal detention having
been agitated in the present writ petition by way of for issuance of writ of
habeas corpus, had directed to post this matter on the following date i.e.
today on 04.03.2025.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that
yesterday i.e. on 03.03.2025, the respondent Nos.20-23 have been produced
before the court and thereafter they have been sent to the judicial custody.
3. This Court has posed a question that the moment the order of remand has
been passed and based upon the same, the appellant has been sent to judicial
custody how this writ petition is maintainable said to be on the ground of
illegal detention for the purpose of issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will demonstrate
aforesaid fact with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition based
upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. This Court has asked learned counsel for the petitioner to place the said
judgment upon which reliance has been placed. He has submitted that at the
moment, he is having no copy of the judgment. However, he has reflected
the relevant paragraph(s) in the interlocutory application. He further has
sought for adjournment so that he may come with the pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Apex court.
6. When the court has passed the order, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that as per Court Management System, the writ petition, if filed
for the purpose of issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, which is to be decided
within a period of 15 days. The basis of this argument failed to understand
reason being that when the case has been mentioned on 03.03.2025, which
has been directed to list on 04.03.2025 and accordingly, this case has been
listed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is not in a position to produce
the judgment on the maintainability of the writ petition but even then he is
trying to persuade that the judgment upon which he is relying upon in
absence thereof, in the writ petition, the appropriate order be passed.
7. This court is of the view that in absence of the decision regarding
maintainability of the requisition once the writ petitioner has been taken into
custody as being objected on behalf of learned counsel for the State by
taking the aforesaid ground, no order can be passed.
8. Considering the same, let this matter be posted on 11th March, 2025 under
the same heading.
9. The interlocutory application being I.A. No.2602 of 2025 filed for early
hearing, since the case has been listed, as such I.A. No.2602 of 2025 is
disposed of as infructuous.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
pappu/-
