Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 998 (MP)

Chandan Singh v. Secretary The State of M. P.

2011-08-25

K.K.LAHOTI, VIMLA JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- "(1) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ of habeas corpus and direct the Jail authority to release him on the basis of false case. (2) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to punish/issue prosecution to the responsible policemen who made the arrest of the petitioner unmannered which is not based upon the law. (3) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give compensation to the petitioner and any cost of petition and other legal expenses. (4) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner which it may deem fit." It is submitted by the petitioner that on 30.7.2010 petitioner was arrested by the Police Adhartal without following the guidelines of Apex Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1997 SC 610 ) and submitted that the reliefs as prayed in the petition may be granted. It is also not disputed before this Court that after the arrest on 30.7.2010 petitioner was released on bail by the competent Court. So far as the contention of petitioner that he was arrested in violation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in D.K.Basu (supra), the sole contention of petitioner is that the witnesses of arrest memo are Om Prakash Moiry and Brejesh Beiragi, against whom petitioner had made complaint to the Police as per Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4, was much before the date of incident and independent witnesses were not called. It is submitted that the entire case is concocted and petitioner may be compensated because of aforesaid arrest. As criminal case is pending before the competent Court of jurisdiction, in which petitioner is to be tried by the Court, at this juncture any opinion expressed by this Court shall affect the trial. The petitioner may raise all his contentions before the competent Court of jurisdiction, but merely on the aforesaid ground, at this juncture compensation cannot be granted. In case petitioner is acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, petitioner may seek remedy against the respondents or any other persons, as is permissible under the law or may file a suit for malice prosecution. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any ground to award compensation to the petitioner. In case petitioner is acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, petitioner may seek remedy against the respondents or any other persons, as is permissible under the law or may file a suit for malice prosecution. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any ground to award compensation to the petitioner. This petition is found without merit and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.