Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1897 (ALL)

Aanchal Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-05-16

AJAI LAMBA, RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA II

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondents to produce the petitioner in court and set at her liberty. 2. Order dated 10.5.2016 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioner. The order is extracted here-below: - "1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent no. 3 to release the petitioner. It has been pleaded that without there being any criminal proceeding and without jurisdiction respondent no. 4 vide Annexure-2 dated 16th April, 2016 has confined the petitioner in respondent no. 3 facility. 2. Respondent no. 3 is directed to produce the petitioner in Court on the next date of listing. 4. City Magistrate, Gonda is directed to file his affidavit as to under what circumstances liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed. Respondent no. 4 shall remain present in Court and shall furnish reason as to why costs be not imposed for curtailing liberty of the petitioner." 5. List on 16th May, 2016." 3. Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of father of the petitioner. Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey admits that the petitioner has attained age of majority, however, states that the petitioner is required to return to her paternal home. 4. Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, City Magistrate, Gonda has filed his affidavit in deference to order of the court. Gist of the affidavit is that the petitioner disappeared on 4.4.2016. A missing report was lodged at the instance of her father on 14.4.2016 in Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda. The petitioner was apprehended on 16.4.2016. The petitioner refused to go to her father's house or to house of her relative. 5. It has been projected before this court through the affidavit that Station House Officer, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda requested the City Magistrate to record statement of the victim and pass orders. The City Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner on 16.4.2016 in which she stated that she had left the house on 4.4.2016 without informing her parents and was apprehended by the police she did not want to go with the parents and she does not want to say anything more. It has further been stated in the affidavit that no application was made by any other person for custody of the petitioner. It has further been stated in the affidavit that no application was made by any other person for custody of the petitioner. Statement of the petitioner recorded by the Magistrate is appended as Annexure SCA 2. The Magistrate has submitted that he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a destitute and, therefore, was confined to Women Protective Home, Faizabad in the interest of her safety. 6. Having gone through the order passed by the City Magistrate, placed on record as Annexure 2 with the main petition, dated 16.4.2016, we find that the City Magistrate has not considered any material to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is a destitute. The order does not even record that the petitioner is a destitute. General meaning of "destitute" would be a person without any money, food or a home. 7. The petitioner who has been produced in court states that she is a student of B.A. part II and has alternate place to stay. She has stated that she neither wants to go to her parents house nor wants to be confined in Women Protective Home, Faizabad. 8. This court is of the considered opinion that injustice has been caused to the petitioner by detaining her in Women Protective Home by virtue of order passed by the City Magistrate namely Shri Arun Kumar Shukla. The order passed by Shri Arun Kumar Shukla is not only without reasons, but is also without any material. 9. This court is of the considered opinion that any order passed by an Executive Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate should be in conformity and in support of right vested in a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any order passed in violation of that right would result in curtailing liberty of a citizen which has very serious implications for the victim. 10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The action of the City Magistrate in depriving the petitioner of her liberty is clearly in violation of right vested in the petitioner. The petitioner has been detained in the protective home without there being any valid and legal reason. 11. The petitioner, an adult, has stated that she does not want to live with her family. The action of the City Magistrate in depriving the petitioner of her liberty is clearly in violation of right vested in the petitioner. The petitioner has been detained in the protective home without there being any valid and legal reason. 11. The petitioner, an adult, has stated that she does not want to live with her family. This would by no means allow the City Magistrate to pass an order of detention. 12. Considering various aspects of the case noticed above, we hereby direct Superintendent, Women Protective Home, Faizabad, District Faizabad to forthwith allow the petitioner to go as per her own wish. 13. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 14. The petitioner apprehends threat to her life for some reasons that she chooses not to disclose in the open court. 15. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow to depute four police personnel including two lady police officials, and a vehicle for transporting the petitioner to Gonda. The address would be disclosed by the petitioner. 16. Learned Government Advocate is directed to convey the directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow so that appropriate arrangements can be made by 2.00 p.m.