Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1481 (ALL)

Simran Alias Simran Kaur v. State of U. P.

2018-07-05

NEERAJ TIWARI, RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.3, District Ghaziabad, whereby the detenue namely, Simran alias Simran Kaur has been sent to Nari Niketan, Meerut and further for a direction to respondent no.2 to release the corpus forthwith and set her at liberty. 3. Perusal of the record shows that though instant habeas corpus writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner through her next friend/husband namely, Sonu Bhati son of Chater Singh Bhati resident of Badpura Post and Police Station Dadri, District Gataumbudh Nagar but the affidavit in the present case has been sworn by one Mange Ram Bhati resident of Kale resident of 129 Badhpura Dadri, Police Station Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Record further reveals that signature put on the vakalatnama is of Mange Ram Bhati instead of Sonu Bhati- the next friend of detenue petitioner when in fact, said Mange Ram is the deponent of the present habeas corpus writ petition. No person can be permitted to misuse the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition and get the corpus (girl) summoned without realising that it may not only adversely affect the honour and prestige of the corpus (girl) but also her entire family. 4. This Court takes a very serious note with regard to the aforesaid conduct on the part of petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the present habeas corpus writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to file fresh, if so advised. 6. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by way of a mention in one criminal case by the learned counsel for the informant-respondent that the person who had sworn the affidavit in that particular case was in jail on the day when the affidavit was sworn at Allahabad and therefore the affidavit itself is false. 6. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by way of a mention in one criminal case by the learned counsel for the informant-respondent that the person who had sworn the affidavit in that particular case was in jail on the day when the affidavit was sworn at Allahabad and therefore the affidavit itself is false. From the aforesaid incident, it was revealed that whenever a deponent comes to this Court for the purpose of getting his photograph to be taken at the photo I.D. Centre of this Court in relation to a particular case, the local District Court counsel frequently asks the counsels otherwise practicing in this Court to get his two or three photographs, so that the same may be utilized in some other cases also to be filed before this Court. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and with a view to curb such type of practice exploiting the counsel practicing in this Court as well as misrepresentation before the Court, the following direction is being passed to avoid the above tendency and to ensure transparency and smooth judicial functioning of the Court.:- 1. It must be ensured that in habeas corpus writ petitions, where the detenue is being illegally detained, the deponent shall be his or her next friend and not pairokar of the case. 2. Verification of the deponent in the major as well as minor bail applications, should be done by the concerned police station, during the notice period to ascertain as to whether the deponent in fact has sworn his affidavit before this Court or not. If the deponent confirms that he has given his affidavit before this Court, then a notorised affidavit of the deponent should be obtained and handed over to the learned Standing Counsel/A.G.A. to be placed along with instructions before the concerned Court at the time of hearing of the bail applications. In case, the deponent happens to be a resident of different district, then in that case, through FAX message the aforesaid information should be obtained. 3. In case of Criminal Misc. (482) Applications, criminal revisions, criminal writs etc. In case, the deponent happens to be a resident of different district, then in that case, through FAX message the aforesaid information should be obtained. 3. In case of Criminal Misc. (482) Applications, criminal revisions, criminal writs etc. in case, the deponent is pariokar, he/she should remain present on the first day of hearing of fresh cases, so as to avoid the anxiety of the Court as to whether the deponent is the same person, who has filed affidavit in that case and his/ her photograph has not been misused which has been obtained to be filed in some other case. 4. The Incharge computer centre should be asked to develop a software with regard to the deponents so as to find out as to whether concerned deponent is giving his/her affidavit for the first time in that particular case or he/she has also earlier given affidavit in some other cases which may be totally unrelated to one another so as to avoid such misrepresentation before the Court. 8. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar-General of the Court for necessary action after obtaining the requisite approval.