Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Subhash Chandra Pandey & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 13666 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 284 (19 August 2003)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.32

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.13666 of 2003

Subhash Chandra Pandey & another vs. State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble K.K. Misra, J.

List has been revised in spite of that none is present on behalf of the petitioner.  However, we have perused the writ petition and counter affidavit filed by respondent no.6.

It has been alleged in the writ petition that on 19.3.2003 respondent no.6, S.O. of Police Station Amahpur, District Etah visited the residence of the petitioners and assaulted petitioner no.2 without any rhyme or reason and took him into custody on the same day at about 2.30 pm and detained without producing him before the Magistrate.  However, this fact has been denied in para 4 of the counter affidavit.  In para 11 of the counter affidavit it is further alleged that in fact petitioner no.1 is accused and wanted in criminal case no.32 of 2003, under Sections 279/332/427 IPC and Section 112/183 Motor Vehicle Act and in case crime no.31 of 2003, under Sections 302, 336 & 120-B IPC.  He is absconding and avoiding his arrest.  Copy of the counter affidavit was served on the learned counsel for the petitioners and he was allowed two weeks' time on 21.4.2003 to file rejoinder to the same.  On his request again on 22.7.2003 two weeks' further time was granted to him for filing rejoinder affidavit in spite of that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

In view of the categorical statement made in the counter affidavit that petitioner no.2 is not under detention, this petition appears to be misconceived and has no merit.  It is accordingly dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.