Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROSHAN LAL versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Roshan Lal v. State Of U.P. & Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 15426 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 556 (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.15426 of 2004

Roshan Lal vs. 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 the petitioner, Roshan Lal is illegally detained since 5.4.2004 by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kokhraj, District Allahabad.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.

It is urged that the petitioner is not wanted in any criminal case nor he has any criminal antecedent despite that respondent no.3 has detained him since 5.4.2004 in the police station.  

On the other hand, learned AGA drew our attention to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sirathu, District Allahabad wherein the allegation of illegal detention has been denied.  It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was wanted in case crime no.18 of 2004 under Sections 376 & 302 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC & ST Act, P.S. Kokhraj, District Allahabad and was arrested 9.4.2004.  It has also been disclosed in the counter affidavit that the deponent is the Investigating Officer of the crime in question and arrest of the petitioner was effected under his order.   It is also stated that the petitioner was arrested along with Mahender Yadav and they have confessed their involvement in the crime and also narrated the story of committing rape by them on the deceased Sugamia, whose dead body was subsequently recovered.  The allegation of arrest on 6.4.2004 has been denied in the counter affidavit and it has been asserted that the petitioner was, in fact, arrested on 9.4.2004.

In the fact of the case and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid case and has been remanded to judicial custody this petition is misconceived and the prayer sought for cannot be granted.  

There is no merit in this petition.  It is accordingly dismissed.

16.8.2004

OP/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.