Jharkhand High Court
Hajera Bibi vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 26 July, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, B. B. Mangalmurti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.)No. 119 of 2016
Hajera Bibi ....... Petitioner
Vrs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj
3. The Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahebganj
5. The Officer-in-Charge Raj Mahal Police Station .... Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. B. MANGALMURTI
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent State : Mr. Binod Singh, S.C.(L&C)
05/26.07.2017No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondent State is present. Surviving defects have not been removed.
2. Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for release of her husband namely Abdul Rajjak alleging that he has been arrested on 11.6.2016 from the office of Chand Foundation Trust by the Respondent no.4. She alleges that without institution of any F.I.R and without any legal warrant against her husband, he has been illegally detained since 11.6.2016.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent no. 2,3,4 and 5. Respondents have made categorical statement that there were allegations of exploitation of innocent people of the area by the husband of the petitioner along with some trustees of Chand Foundation Trust by raising money in an illegal and fraudulent manner. The same was inquired on 11.6.2016 by the Respondent S.D.O, Rajmahal who prima facie found the allegation true. Thereafter, a direction was issued to Prakhand Gram Panchayat Raj Padadhikari to lodge F.I.R against the owner and trustees of the aforesaid trust. F.I.R was lodged against the Trust and the truestees being Rajmahal P.S.Case No. 89 of 2016 on 12.6.2016 under Section 420,467,468,12B of I.P.C and Under Section 3/4/5/6 of the Prize and Money Circulation Banning Scheme Act, 1978. The Rajmahal Police has made seizure of documents and cash from the house of husband of the petitioner and arrested him where after he was sent to jail custody with forwarding memo of evidence in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that the accused Abdul Rajjak had preferred bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal and has also been released thereafter.
5. We have considered the relevant materials on record and submission of -2- learned counsel for the Respondent State as well. In view of the stand brought on record by the Respondents, we find that this writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is misconceived. However, petitioner being the wife of accused and a semi literate lady , we refrain ourselves from imposing any cost in the matter.
6. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (B.B.Mangalmurti, J.) A.Mohanty