Allahabad High Court
Anmol Katiyar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 March, 2021
Author: Y.K.Srivastava
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 146 of 2021 Petitioner :- Anmol Katiyar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Siya Ram Verma Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Sri Siya Ram Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has drawn the attention of the Court to the previous order dated 04.03.2021 which records that pursuant to the rule nisi issued earlier, the petitioner no. 1 had been produced by the respondent no. 4 on the said date. For ease of reference the order dated 04.03.2021 is being extracted below :-
"Pursuant to the rule nisi issued earlier, the petitioner no. 1 has been produced by the respondent no. 4, and has been identified by Sri S.R. Verma, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 4.
Sri Saroj Chowdhary, holding brief for Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I, are also present.
Learned A.G.A.-I, on the basis of an enquiry made from the petitioner no. 1, submits that she has stated that she is major and is presently studying at ITI, Kanpur. She has denied the factum of marriage with the petitioner no. 2 and states that she was forced to sign certain papers under threat, on the basis of which, the petitioner no. 2 has got the marriage certificates prepared. She has stated that she is presently at her father's place at Village and Post Gauri Karan, Baherimah, Police Station Bhognipur, District- Kanpur Dehat, and that she desires to go back alongwith the respondent no. 4, her father.
As the Advocates are abstaining from work, let the matter appear in the additional cause list on 17th March, 2021.
The petitioner no. 1 is at liberty to go alongwith the respondent no. 4, her father, to the place from where she has been brought.
The personal presence of the petitioner no. 1 would no longer be required in this case, unless directed otherwise.
The Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, is expected to ensure all necessary steps to provide adequate security to the petitioner no. 1 in the meantime.
Let this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, by the Joint Registrar (Compliance), forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be also furnished to Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General."
Having regard to the facts as noticed in the aforesaid order and the statement of the petitioner no. 1 (corpus) made before the Court on the previous occasion, there is no reason to make the rule nisi issued earlier absolute. The rule nisi stands discharged.
The petition stands accordingly dismissed.
The amount deposited in terms of the order dated 10.02.2021 may be released to the petitioner no. 1 after due verification.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021 Pratima (Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)