# Badri Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 408 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-07-10 - **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 526 of 2020 - **Bench:** J.J. Munir - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/badri-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45592 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - Writ of Habeas Corpus- Rule Nisi - Illegal confinement - It is evident that the detenu is not at all in any kind of illegal confinement by or at the instance of Smt. Shanti Devi. He is staying, with Shanti Devi of his own accord. In the circumstances, the rule nisi issued by this Court cannot be made absolute. The Rule is discharged. Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4) ## Text 408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 52. In view of above discussion, we find that the impugned detention order dated 10.07.2020 and its subsequent extension orders passed against the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed. 53. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned detention order of the petitioner Javed Siddiqui is quashed. The petitioner /detenue Javed Siddiqui is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 54. The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. 55. The concerned Court/Authority/Official Shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. ---------- (2020)12ILR A408 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 526 of 2020 Badri Yadav & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Rahul Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. A. Civil Law - Writ of Habeas Corpus- Rule Nisi - Illegal confinement - It is evident that the detenu is not at all in any kind of illegal confinement by or at the instance of Smt. Shanti Devi. He is staying, with Shanti Devi of his own accord. In the circumstances, the rule nisi issued by this Court cannot be made absolute. The Rule is discharged. Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4) (Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.) 1. In compliance with the rule nisi issued on 15.10.2020, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi has executed the commission at Varanasi, to record the statement of Badri Yadav S/o the late Kharpattu Yadav in order to ascertain whether he is in illegal confinement of Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Surendra Yadav or anyone else acting on her behalf. 2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi has submitted his report dated 21.10.2020 along with his covering memo dated 22.10.2020. There is also a separate minutes of the commission executed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 21.10.2020. The original has not yet arrived but the Court has received an e-mail copy of all these documents. This Court proceeds to act on the report of the commission. The report of the commission done by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi dated 21.10.2020 reads as under: "बययान बदद्री ययादव s/o स्व 0 खरपतत्तू ययादव ददनयानाांक 21.10.2020 मयाननद्रीय उच्च न्ययाययालय, इलयाहयाबयाद कके बन्दद्री प्रत्यकद्रीकरण 12 All. Badri Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 409 ररट सनाांख्यया 526 सनन 2020 बदद्री ययादव एवनाां एक अन्य बनयाम उतर प्रदकेश रयाज्य एवनाां तद्रीन अन्य , मम मयाननद्रीय न्ययाययालय कके आदकेश ददनयानाांदकत 15.10.2020 कके अननुपयालन मम म सनुरकेन्द म प्रतयाप ययादव, मनुख्य न्ययादयक वयारयाणसद्री नके बदद्री ययादव पनुत्र स्व 0 खरपतत्तू ययादव, उम्र 70 वरर लगिग मत्तूल दनवयासद्री हकेमई, थयानया ददोहरद्री घयाट, िजिलया मउ, उतर प्रदकेश कया बययान दनम्निलिखत अनाांदकत दकयया गययायप्रश्नय- आपकया नयाम क्यया हह? उतरय- बदद्री ययादव। प्रश्नय- आपकया मत्तूल दनवयासद्री कहयाहाूँ कके ह?म उतरय- म गयाम हकेमई म , थयानया ददोहरद्री घयाट, िजिलया मउ कया मत्तूल दनवयासद्री हहहाूँ। प्रश्नय- यह मकयान दकसकया हह? उतरय- यह मकयान मकेरके ियाई स्व 0 िदोलया कया हह, िजिनककी ममृत्य सनन नु 2011 मम हदो चनुककी हह, यहयानाां पर मकेरके ियाई ककी पत्नद्री शयान्तद्री व उनकया पनुत्र रदव प्रकयाश रहतया हह। प्रश्नय- आप यहयाहाूँ पर कब आयके थके? उतरय- म यहयानाां पर म 23.09.2020 कदो आयया थया। प्रश्नय- आप यहयानाां पर क्ययोां आयके थके? उतरय- मम18 िसतम्बर कदो कयाफकी बद्रीमयार हदो गयया थया। गयानाांव पर कदोई दकेखियाल करनके वयालया नहहीां थया। मकेरद्री पत्नद्री खद बह नु हत कमजिदोर हह। तब मनके शयान्तद्री कदो फदोन म दकयया। तब शयान्तद्री वहयानाां जियाकर पहलके मनुझके िसपयाह , मऊ मम फयािलस वयालके ड्याक्टर कदो ददखयायद्री दफर यहयानाां पर ददनयानाांक 23.09.2020 कदो लकेकर आयद्री और ड्याक्टर कदो ददखयायया तब जियाकर मनुझके आरयाम हहआ। तब सके म यहद्री पर ह म हहाूँ, यह लदोग मकेरद्री दकेखियाल करतके ह।म प्रश्नय- क्यया आपकदो शयान्तद्री दकेवद्री यया अन्य दकसद्री कके दयारया यहयानाां पर जिबरदस्तद्री रदोककर अथवया बन्द करकके रखया गयया हह? उतरय- मनुझके यहयानाां पर दकसद्री कके दयारया जिबरदस्तद्री रदोक कर नहहीां रखया गयया हह और न हद्री बन्द करकके रखया गयया हह। म यहयानाां पर स्वकेच्छया सके इलयाजि करयानके कके िलए आयया म हहहाूँ। यह लदोग मकेरद्री दकेखियाल करतके ह।म प्रश्नय- शयान्तद्री दकेवद्री व अन्य दकसद्री नके आपकदो ड्रयायया धमकयायया तदो नहहीां हह? उतरय- मनुझके दकसद्री नके ड्रयायया धमकयायया नहहीां हह। प्रश्नय- आप मयानिसक रूप पत्तूणरतय स्वथथ ह?म उतरय- जिद्री। हयानाां। प्रश्नय- शयान्तद्री दकेवद्री आदद नके आप सके दकसद्री कयागजि पर अनाांगत्तूठया / हस्तयाकर तदो नहहीां लगवयायया हह? उतरय- म पढया िलखया नहहीां ह म हहाूँ। इन लदोगयोां नके मनुझसके कहहीां िद्री कयागजि पर अनाांगत्तूठया नहहीां लगवयायया हह। बययान मकेरके दयारया पढवयाकर , सनुनकर, समझकर, स्वथथ मसस्तष्क सके समझकर तस्दद्रीक दकयया गयया। ह 0 दन0 अनाांगनुठया बदद्री ययादव बययान मकेरके दयारया बदद्री कके बतयानके कके अननुसयार अनाांदकत दकयया गह। ह 0 अपदठत दद0 21-10-2020 CJM, Varanasi." 3. Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Indrajeet Singh, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State. 4. A perusal of the statement of the detenu Badri Yadav S/o the late Kharpattu Yadav recorded on commission by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi shows that the detenu called Smt. Shanti Devi himself over phone that he was unwell on 18.09.2020. He called Smt. Shanti Devi because the detenu's wife, according to him, is quite feeble. According to the detenu's stand, Smt. Shanti Devi is taking good care of detenu and has not 410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES detained him against his will or wishes. It has come out clearly in the recorded statement of Badri Yadav that no one has threatened him or put him under any kind of duress. The detenu has also said that Smt. Shanti Devi has not taken his thumb impression on any paper. Going by the aforesaid stand of the detenu evident from his statement recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, it is evident that the detenu is not at all in any kind of illegal confinement by or at the instance of Smt. Shanti Devi. He is staying with Shanti Devi of his own accord. 5. In the circumstances, the rule nisi issued by this Court cannot be made absolute. The Rule is discharged. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 6. This Court has carefully perused proceedings of the commission, including the minutes. This Court must record its appreciation for a very carefully done commission by Mr. Surendra Pratap Yadav, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. ---------- (2020)12ILR A410 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 861 of 2019 Smt. Meenakshi & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Sri Mohit Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: G.A., Sri Amar Nath, Sri Shravana Kumar Yadav, Sri P.N. Tiwari Minor in custody of father-mother claiming itthough father's custody cannot be termed illegal-but interest and welfare of minor is important over parents' rights-Here mother is far better educated than father-minor's interest is better secured with mother-custody granted to mother-Petition allowed. Held, There is little doubt about the issue that though both the mother and the father are natural guardians, a writ of habeas corpus may issue, because the Court can still determine the legality of the custody with reference to the question of the minor's welfare. As it is said, it is not so much about the rights of the parents to an exclusive custody of the child, as it is about the child's welfare. It is, therefore, lawful for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction and issue a writ of habeas corpus to place the child in a custody, where his/ her welfare appears to the Court to have the best prospects. This petition is, therefore, held to be maintainable. (Para18) Petition allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited:- 1. Syed Saleemuddin Vs Dr. Rukhsana & ors., (2001) 5 SCC 247 2. Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & anr. , (2017) 8 SCC 454 3. Tejaswini Gaud & ors.Vs Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & ors., (2019) 7 SCC 42 4. Yashita Sahu Vs St. of Raj. & ors., (2020) 3 SCC 67 5. Githa Hariharan (Ms) & anr. Vs R.B.I. & anr., (1999) 2 SCC 228 6. Nil Ratan Kundu & anr. Vs Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413. 7. Tejaswini Gaud & ors.Vs Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & 15 ors., (2019) 7 SCC 42 8. Master Atharva (Minor& anr. Vs St. of U.P. & 7 ors., decided on 19.10.2020 (Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)