Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)Umesh Kumar Bohre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 June, 2019
However, before parting, looking to the conduct of the
petitioner, this Court is constrained to saddle an exemplary cost of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP. No. 6844/2020
(Umesh Kumar Bohare Vs. State of M.P. and others)
(5)
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) upon him for wasting
the precious time of this Court, to be deposited with the Principal
Registrar of this Court within a period of thirty days from today,
for being utilized in the up-liftment of the Dispensary located in
the High Court campus at Gwalior.
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 December, 1950
"11. The second question does not present much difficulty
because in Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India,
AIR 1951 SC 41, Mukherjea and Das JJ. have been of the
opinion that a writ for a relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution, though not at the instance of an utter
stranger, is at least available through a friend or relation
of the detenu, who can apply for a writ of habeas corpus
questioning the detention.
Ram Kumar Pearay Lal vs District Magistrate on 28 May, 1965
Relying upon the same, a five Judge Bench of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. District
Magistrate, Delhi (AIR 1966 P&H 51 = 1966 CriLJ 153) has
answered the question as to maintainability of a writ of habeas
corpus at the instance of a person who is neither a friend nor a
relation of the detenu in the following terms:-
The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 5 February, 1962
In Calcutta Gas Company
(Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC
1044, their Lordships observed that "The right that can
be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the
personal or individual right of the petitioner himself,
though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus
or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP. No. 6844/2020
(Umesh Kumar Bohare Vs. State of M.P. and others)
(3)
modified". So that a petition for writ of habeas corpus
under Article 226 can of course be filed by the person in
detention or custody, and it can also be filed, on his
behalf, by a friend or relation for this reason that such a
person is in a position to make an affidavit that the
detenu himself is not able to move in the matter and with
regard to the facts and circumstances rendering illegal
the detention or custody. An utter stranger cannot
possibly help the Court in this. He cannot explain why the
detained person is himself not able to move in the matter
and he cannot possibly make an affidavit with regard to
the facts and circumstances which go to show whether or
not the detention or custody is illegal. The answer to the
question is that petition for writ of habeas corpus is
ordinarily moved by the person detained or in custody
and can be moved also by a friend or relation, but for the
reasons stated, not by an utter stranger. In the rarest of
cases, where the Court has been apprised of material
which immediately and obviously establishes the
illegality of the detention or custody, of course the Court
will for the ends of justice, proceed to issue the necessary
writ, direction or order and in such rare cases a stranger
may come in, but such a contingency should appear to be
so rare as to be almost nonexistent. In the present case,
the question as framed in broad terms does not arise,
because the petitioner claims to be a friend of the detenu
and there is nothing to show the contrary."
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1