Sudesh Rani vs State of Haryana

S.S. Saron, J.—Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chand, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Safidon District Jind on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed in the Court today. Reply on behalf of Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 3 has also been filed. The same are taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The allegation of the petitioner Sudesh Rani is that her husband namely Sohan Lal has been illegally detained by respondents No. 3 and 4 at Police Station Pilukhera, District Jind.

This Court on 27.05.2014 issued notice of motion to Advocate General Haryana and report of Superintendent of Police, Jind in the matter was called for.

According to the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2 allegation of illegal detention levelled by the petitioner is false. It is stated that Sohan Lal husband of the petitioner was neither summoned nor illegally detained by the police of Police Station Pilukhera, District Jind. Some litigation is going on between EHC Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 3 and Sohan Lal husband of the petitioner. A complaint has been filed by EHC Mohinder Singh for commission of offence punishable u/s 3(i) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case is false case and Sohan Lal husband of the petitioner has been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court.

During the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that at present the petitioner is not in custody.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been released on 28.05.2014 at 8.00 p.m.

According to learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3, husband of the petitioner was never detained, therefore, the question of releasing him does not arise. Admittedly, as of now Sohan Lal is not in custody.

In Talib Hussain Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, , it has been held that for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the Court has to consider the legality of detention on the date of hearing and no writ of habeas corpus can be issued if detention on that date is lawful. The alleged detenue as on date is admittedly not in custody.

Therefore, a writ of habeas corpus is not to be issued. In case the petitioner has any other claim as against alleged highhandedness of the police or the alleged detention of her husband, she may seek her remedies in accordance with law.

The criminal writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, nothing stated or observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of any other case pending or to be initiated between the parties.