Delhi High Court - Orders
Pawan Kumar vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 28 December, 2023
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 3844/2023
PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Counsel for petitioner.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for Mr.
Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the
State with S.I. Avinesh, P.S: Jagat
Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
ORDER
% 28.12.2023
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for production and release of the illegally detained detenue (son of the petitioner) in contravention of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of Section 41A Cr.P.C.
2. It is submitted in the petition that, Mr. Mayank Tomer, son of the petitioner has been suffering from harassment by the Local Police in connivance with the complainant in FIR Nos. 306/2022, 524/2022 and 65/2023, Police Station: Anand Vihar. The petitioner was given a Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C dated 03.12.2023 and 04.12.2023 at around 8:00 p.m. and was directed to appear at Police Station: Jagat Puri on 05.12.2023 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/12/2023 at 21:33:52 at 4:00 p.m. The Notice was not as per the guidelines of Section 41A Cr.P.C and on the prescribed format nor was it served personally upon the son of the petitioner, although the son of the petitioner gave a reply to the same on 06.12.2023.
3. It is asserted that no Notice has been served upon the son of the petitioner and he has been illegally detained on 27.12.2023 by the I.O. along with the brother of the complainant i.e. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, who is the practicing lawyer at Karkardooma Courts. The son of the petitioner was given protection by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2023 in W.P.(Crl) 3132/2022 and further vide order dated 22.03.2023 in W.P.(Crl) 819/2023. It was specifically directed to the State that all the guidelines and law laid down should be followed in respect of the three FIRs filed on the complaint of the same complainant against the same set of accused, emanating from matrimonial dispute.
4. It is asserted that the son of the petitioner has been illegally detained. Therefore, directions be issued to the respondent for production and release of the detenue i.e. Mr. Mayank Tomer illegally detained since 27.12.2023 and for preserving the CCTV footage of Police Station: Jagat Puri from 15.11.2023 to 28.12.2023.
5. Mr. Laksh Khanna, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the accused had been duly served with a Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. He had joined the investigations five times but thereafter he stopped joining the investigations. It is further submitted that the accused has been produced by the I.O before the concerned Court in Karkardooma Court and is present in the Court Complex.
6. It is asserted that there is neither any violation of the directions of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/12/2023 at 21:33:52 guidelines laid down in Section 41A CrPC and in the various judgments relied upon by the petitioner including Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI. It is vehemently denied that the son of the petitioner is in illegal custody of the police.
7. Submissions heard.
8. In view of the submissions of the learned APP, the accused has already been produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, no further directions are required to be made in the present writ petition. The issues agitated in the present Writ in regard to the violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C and the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in various Judgments, may be agitated before the Metropolitan Magistrate or appropriate forum.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA (VACATION JUDGE) SHALINDER KAUR (VACATION JUDGE) DECEMBER 28, 2023/RS This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/12/2023 at 21:33:53