Skip to main content

High Court can’t issue habeas corpus writ in case of private detention

The Hyderabad High Court has held that it cannot issue writ of habeas corpus in case of private detention.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar was dismissing a habeas corpus petition by a person from Karimnagar district seeking production of his wife who was in alleged detention of his in- laws.

The petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the  case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain versus the state of Uttar Pradesh  and  submitted that the unauthorised detention by private individual  was also can be taken care of in writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of  habeas corpus.

After perusing the order of the Apex Court, the bench said that when  the Allahabad High Court first entertained application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case of alleged detention of a person by private  individual, the High Court was under Section 491 of the Code, was conferred with specific power to issue writ of habeas corpus.

Maintaining that the Apex Court held the power of High Court under  Section 491 of the Code, 1898, was discretionary one, the bench ruled  that now, above Code, 1898, was repealed, and replaced by present Code of 1973 without corresponding power of High Court to issue writ of habeas corpus  in case of private detention.

Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150130/nation-current-affairs/article/can%E2%80%99t-issue-habeas-corpus-writ-says-hyderabad-high-court

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...