Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DINESH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dinesh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 27396 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 543 (16 August 2004)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.27396 of 2004

Dinesh & others vs. The State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

 

In the instant petition it has been alleged that petitioner nos.1 & 2 were taken from their houses by the police of Dhoomanganj Police Station, Allahabad on 17.7.2004 at 5 pm and since then they are detained illegally.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

It is submitted that the detention of the petitioners by the Dhoomanganj Police is illegal against which petitioner no.3, who is the mother of petitioner no.2, also moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad in spite of that he has not been released from the custody.

On the other hand, learned AGA submitted that the petitioners were arrested by the Cantt. police in connection with case crime nos.346 of 2004, 347 of 2004 & 348 of 2004, under Section 307/34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Act on 19.7.2004 and were produced before the learned CJM, Allahabad, who remanded them to judicial custody.

In the counter affidavit sworn by Parashuram Singh, Station Officer of Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad, it has categorically been stated that the petitioners have been challaned by the Police Station Cantt. in Case Crime Nos. 346 of 2004, 347 of 2004 and 348 of 2004 under Sections 307/34 IPC, 25 Arms Act and Section 4/5  Explosive Act, copy of the FIR has also been enclosed but this fact about the involvement of the petitioners about the aforesaid crime has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioners are in jail in the aforesaid case crime, it cannot be held that their detention is unlawful.

There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

16.8.2004

A.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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