# Anuj Pandey & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 770
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-16
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 251 of 2026
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-pandey-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54305
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 770
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 251 of 2026

Anuj Pandey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226- The present petition is a gross abuse of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The remedy of habeas corpus, which is meant to secure
personal liberty, cannot be permitted to be misused by a litigant who approaches the Court with
unclean hands and suppresses material facts. Petitioner no. 1 has not only concealed material
facts but has also attempted to mislead this Court to secure an order in his favour. Such conduct
is not merely improper but amounts to a calculated attempt to subvert the course of justice. The
conduct of petitioner no. 1 reflects a blatant disregard for the judicial process and cannot be
countenanced- Case under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act against the petitioner has been
pending trial since 2017, and two cases-(i) under Section 307 I.P.C. and (ii) under Section 25 of
the Arms Act, 1959-have been pending trial since 2019. Had these cases been concluded in a
timely manner, the young girl of adolescent age and her family members would not have been
subjected to such a prolonged and traumatic phase of life.
Held- Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- with certain directions
to secure the ends of justice by invoking the power vests with writ jurisdiction. (E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950;

List of Keywords
Habeas corpus; Litigant approached the court with unclean hands; Attempt to subvert the course of justice;
Blatant disregard for the judicial process and cannot be countenanced

Case Arising From
Writ petition, in the nature of habeas corpus, has been preferred by petitioner no. 1 for and on behalf of
petitioner no. 2, with the prayer that petitioner no. 2, is his legally wedded wife, and that respondent nos. 4
and 5, being the father and brother of his wife, have illegally detained her.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : LALIT OJHA
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
3 All. Anuj Pandey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
771
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. The present writ petition, in the nature of habeas corpus, has been preferred by petitioner
no. 1 for and on behalf of petitioner no. 2, with the prayer that petitioner no. 2, namely Ms. Shiksha
Jaiswal, is his legally wedded wife, and that respondent nos. 4 and 5, being the father and brother
of his wife, have illegally detained her.

2. It is further contended in the petition that the marriage between petitioner nos. 1 and 2
was allegedly solemnized on 06.10.2025 at the residence of petitioner no. 1, in accordance with
Hindu rites and rituals, in the presence of two witnesses. The said marriage was performed against
the wishes of the parents of petitioner no. 2. Subsequently, an online application for registration of
the marriage was submitted on 12.01.2026. Allegations of harassment by respondent nos. 4 and 5
(the father and brother of petitioner no. 2) have also been made, and a written application in that
regard is stated to have been sent by petitioner no. 1 to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, on
19.01.2026 through registered post.

3. It is further pleaded that petitioner no. 1 had earlier approached this Court by filing WritC No. 1554 of 2026, seeking protection against interference by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in his
matrimonial life. The said writ petition was disposed of in limine by a co-ordinate Bench vide order
dated 29.01.2026, granting liberty to approach the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, in case of
any threat perception to his life and property.

4. It is further contended that thereafter, with the assistance of the police, respondent nos. 4
and 5 forcibly took petitioner no. 2 into their custody from the lawful custody of petitioner no. 1. In
the meantime, petitioner no. 1 was arrested by the police in certain cases, due to which he could not
approach this Court, and during that period, his wife was forcibly taken away by respondent nos. 4
and 5. Having failed to secure the release of his wife, petitioner no. 1 has filed the present petition.

5. When the matter was taken up in the revised call, neither petitioner no. 1 appeared in
person nor did his learned counsel appear. No adjournment slip was moved on behalf of petitioner
no. 1 seeking adjournment. Although the present petition has been filed by Shri Lalit Ojha, learned
Advocate, for and on behalf of petitioner no. 1, the Vakalatnama states that both the petitioners
have engaged Shri Lalit Ojha, Advocate; however, the signature of petitioner no. 2, Ms. Shikha
Jaiswal, is not available on the Vakalatnama.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it can safely be inferred that the present petition has been
filed solely by the husband (petitioner no. 1), arraying Ms. Shikha Jaiswal as petitioner no. 2
without her knowledge or consent.

7. Per contra, Shri Rajiv Shukla, learned Advocate, appeared for petitioner no. 2 and filed
a supplementary affidavit on her behalf, stating that he has been duly engaged by petitioner no. 2,
Ms. Shikha Jaiswal, and a Vakalatnama duly signed by her has also been filed. Learned counsel for
petitioner no. 2 (corpus) submitted that he had informed Shri Lalit Ojha, learned counsel for
petitioner no. 1, through all possible modes, including WhatsApp, SMS, and telephonic
communication, to appear before the Court on the scheduled date. Despite such intimation, neither
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner no. 1 nor his counsel appeared. The conspicuous non-appearance of petitioner no. 1 and
his counsel thus raises serious doubts regarding his bona fides in prosecuting the present petition.

8. The supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner no. 2 discloses that an earlier petition,
being Writ-C No. 1554 of 2026, was filed by petitioner no. 1 by deliberately suppressing material
facts, and petitioner no. 2 was not aware of any such petition having been filed on her behalf. It is
further contended that the present habeas corpus petition has also been filed without her
knowledge. Petitioner no. 1 is alleged to have blackmailed petitioner no. 2, obtained her signatures
fraudulently, and, on that basis, prepared forged affidavits and a fabricated marriage certificate. It is
further revealed that the co-ordinate Bench, upon being apprised of the true facts, recalled its earlier
order dated 29.01.2026 vide order dated 25.02.2026 and restored the writ petition to its original
number. The said petition is stated to be pending consideration. This material fact has allegedly
been deliberately concealed by petitioner no. 1 in the present petition for ulterior purposes, possibly
to obtain relief by misleading the Court, as argued by learned counsel for petitioner no. 2.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner no. 2 has further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is a
habitual offender and that several criminal cases are pending against him. The father of petitioner
no. 2 had also filed a complaint against petitioner no. 1 on 01.09.2025 before the police at Police
Station Naini, Yamunanagar, on which no action has been taken. The details of the cases are as
follows: (i) FIR being Case Crime No. 0057/2026, under Sections 126(2), 351(2) B.N.S.S., lodged
by petitioner no. 2 herself against petitioner no. 1 at Police Station Naini, Prayagraj; (ii) FIR No.
0346/2017, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities) Act,
1986, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Commissionerate Prayagraj; (iii) FIR No. 0323/2019,
under Section 307 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Commissionerate Prayagraj; (iv)
FIR No. 0324/2019, under Sections 25 and 3 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station
Civil Lines, Commissionerate Prayagraj; (v) FIR No. 0862/2016, under Sections 379, 411, 413,
414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Colonelganj, Commissionerate
Prayagraj; and (vi) FIR No. 0138/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 364 I.P.C., registered at Police
Station Shivkuti, Commissionerate Prayagraj.

10. Out of the five FIRs reflected in the CCTNS CAS Reports, charge-sheets have been
submitted in three cases, whereas in FIR Nos. 0862/2016 and 0138/2023, as detailed above, the
investigation is stated to be pending.

11. The record suggests that petitioner no. 1 is a habitual offender and is involved in
numerous cases of cheating, forgery, attempt to murder, and offences under the Arms Act.

12. It is next contended that petitioner no. 2, Ms. Shikha Jaiswal, filed a complaint on
28.02.2026 before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Prayagraj, seeking a fair and
unbiased investigation in FIR No. 57/2026 registered at Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.
She has also filed a complaint against petitioner no. 1 alleging snatching of her mobile phone,
misuse of her SIM card, digital exploitation, cyber-stalking, and digital blackmail. No action has
been taken by the police on the said complaint.
3 All. Anuj Pandey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
773
13. The criminal history placed before this Court prima facie establishes that petitioner no. 1 is not
only a habitual offender and gangster but also appears to be a person who has scant regard for the rule of law.
The submission that a reward of Rs. 15,000/- has been declared against him further aggravates the
seriousness of the matter.

14. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner no. 2 and perusing the entire material on record, this
Court is of the view that the present petition is a gross abuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
The remedy of habeas corpus, which is meant to secure personal liberty, cannot be permitted to be misused
by a litigant who approaches the Court with unclean hands and suppresses material facts. Petitioner no. 1 has
not only concealed material facts but has also attempted to mislead this Court to secure an order in his favour.
Such conduct is not merely improper but amounts to a calculated attempt to subvert the course of justice.
This Court strongly deprecates such unscrupulous litigation. The conduct of petitioner no. 1 reflects a blatant
disregard for the judicial process and cannot be countenanced.

15. It is an admitted position that a case under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act has been pending
trial since 2017, and two cases?(i) under Section 307 I.P.C. and (ii) under Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959?have been pending trial since 2019. Had these cases been concluded in a timely manner, the young girl
of adolescent age and her family members would not have been subjected to such a prolonged and traumatic
phase of life.

16. The principle of speedy justice, which is integral to the procedure established by law, stands
frustrated when trials linger for years without conclusion. Justice delayed is, in effect, justice denied, and such
denial has grave consequences for both the complainant and the accused. Prolonged litigation inflicts deep
and lasting injuries upon the parties, erodes their mental and emotional well-being, and disturbs the congenial
fabric of society.

17. The apathy of the Courts, coupled with the silent inaction of the State machinery, poses a serious
threat to the rule of law. In such circumstances, both justice and rights stand prejudiced, and ultimately, it is
the faith of the people in the administration of justice that becomes the greatest casualty.

18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the Advocates'
Association, High Court, Allahabad within a period of two months from today. The following directions are
also issued to secure the ends of justice by invoking the power vests with writ jurisdiction:

 (i) In the event petitioner no. 1 fails to appear before the concerned courts in the criminal cases
arising out of (a) FIR No. 0347/2017, under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act at Police Station Civil Lines;
(b) FIR No. 0323/2019, under Section 307 I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines; and (c) FIR No. 0324/2019,
under Sections 25 and 3 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Civil Lines, pending trial before the District
Court, Prayagraj, and seeks to evade the process of law by filing false or frivolous applications for personal
exemption, the courts concerned shall decide such application(s) with reasoned and speaking order, ensuring
an expeditious trial. The bail conditions on which petitioner no. 1 has been released shall be strictly enforced,
and in case of non-compliance, the court concerned shall ensure the petitioner no.1's presence accordingly.
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (ii) The Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, is directed to ensure that the investigation in FIR No.
0862/2016, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 I.P.C. at Police Station Colonelganj,
and FIR No. 0138/2023, under Sections 147, 323, and 364 I.P.C. at Police Station Shivkuti, be concluded
expeditiously in a fair and unbiased manner.

 (iii) If any FIR which has been lodged by petitioner no. 2 in which the investigation has not yet been
concluded, the same shall be completed expeditiously within a time-bound framework. Any pending complaint
not attended to by the police shall also be addressed promptly in accordance with the procedure established by
law.

 (iv) A report shall be submitted by the concerned D.C.P. before the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, detailing the steps taken by the police in compliance with sub-paragraphs (ii) and
(iii).

 (v) The Head of the Prosecution Department, District Prayagraj, shall ensure the timely production of
witnesses in the aforesaid cases.

 (vi) Adequate protection shall be provided to petitioner no. 2 and her family members, if so required.

 (vii) The activities and movements of petitioner no. 1 shall be kept under strict surveillance by the
police authorities for a period of at least one year. In the event of any unlawful activity or breach of bail
conditions, and threat to safety and security of the petitioner no. 2, the police shall be at liberty to take
appropriate legal action, including moving an application for cancellation of bail of petitioner no. 1.

19. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, is directed to submit a report before this Court within a
period of two months from today, indicating the status of proceedings undertaken after the filing of charge-sheet
against the petitioner no. 1. The report shall be transmitted through the Registrar (Compliance), and shall be
placed on the record of this case.

20. The Registrar (Compliance) shall forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Prayagraj, through the learned District Judge, Prayagraj, as well as to the Head of the Prosecution
Department, Prayagraj, and the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, for effective compliance.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 774
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1456 of 2026

Smt. Deepa Katiyar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents