# Naveen Kumar (Detenue) v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 130
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-01
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naveen-kumar-detenue-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44189
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 130
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.- 49736 Of 2015

Naveen Kumar (Detenue) ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Rajni Ojha, Ravindra Nath Chaubey

Counsel for Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Sudhir Mehrotra

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to produce the corpus of detenue
namely, Naveen Kumar i.e. petitioner before this Court.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 7.8.2015
and thereafter remand was granted on 8.8.2015 by the Magistrate concerned. He submits that the said
remand order was a cyclostyle and subsequently, on 21.8.2015 further remand was granted through video
conferencing.

Section 167 (2) proviso (b) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quoted below:-

"(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced
before him;"

A Magistrate cannot order the detention of any person in custody or extend such detention without the
production of the accused before him in violation of the provisions of proviso (b) to S. 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Court observed that the judicial custody remand order dated 21.8.2015 of the accused person Naveen Kumar
through video conferencing, it is evident from the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ram Karan Yadav, presently
posted as Railway Magistrate, Ghaziabad and who has passed the judicial custody remand order dated
21.8.2015 of the accused person Naveen Kumar. It is proved that this order was passed by him when the
accused person Naveen Kumar was present before him through video conferencing and on the basis of
request made by the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid matter, judicial custody remand of the accused
person Naveen Kumar was granted w.e.f. 21.8.2015 to 3.9.2015.

Court does not find any good ground for interference in the matter.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
8 All. Naveen Kumar (Detenue) Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
131
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Rajni Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned
Special Counsel of High Court and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to produce the
corpus of detenue namely, Naveen Kumar i.e. petitioner before this Court.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
arrested on 7.8.2015 and thereafter remand was granted on 8.8.2015 by the Magistrate concerned.
He submits that the said remand order was a cyclostyle and subsequently, on 21.8.2015 further
remand was granted through video conferencing.

4. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel of High Court states that an affidavit has
been filed by Judicial Officer that he has granted the said remand order dated 21.8.2015 through
video conferencing which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been
further pointed out that the detenue has already been released, hence, the present Habeas Corpus
petition has become infructuous.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the said Habeas Corpus petition
can be adjudicated by this Court for granting damages to the petitioner to which learned Special
Counsel of High Court states that first-of-all petitioner has to make out a case that the detention of
detenue of the case is illegal.

6. Section 167 (2) proviso (b) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quoted below:-

"(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless
the accused is produced before him;"

7. A Magistrate cannot order the detention of any person in custody or extend such
detention without the production of the accused before him in violation of the provisions of proviso
(b) to S. 167(2) Cr.P.C.

8. The relevant rulings in this regard are cited below:-

1983 Mad LW (Cri) 121 : 1984 Mad LJ (Cri) 246 ** 1993 (3) Rec Cri R 377 (389) :
1992 (3) Cur Cri R 2793 (Delhi) ** (1991)1 Andh LT 315 : (1991)1 All Cri LR 422 ** (1983) 10
Cri LT 52 (53) (P&H) ** 1981 Luck LJ 78 (81) (DB) ** AIR 1958 Manipur 33 (34) : 1958 Cri LJ
1325.

9. The remand order sheet of the Court of the learned Remand Magistrate, Ghaziabad in
case Crime No. 766 of 2015, under Sections 377, 406, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Vijay Nagar,
District Ghaziabad of the accused person Naveen Kumar dated 8.8.2015 reveals that the judicial
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

custody remand order was passed by the learned Remand Duty Magistrate (Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad) after perusal of the F.I.R., case
diary, extract of the G.D. of the arrest of the accused, memo of arrest and the accused was produced
by the police personnel of Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad after arresting the
accused person Naveen Kumar. The accused person Naveen Kumar was produced before the
learned Remand Duty Magistrate who after passing the judicial order on the remand application of
the Investigating Officer, remanded the accused person Naveen Kumar for 14 days of the judicial
custody w.e.f. 8.8.2015 to 21.8.2015. This is evident from the signature of the accused person
Naveen Kumar appended therein on the remand sheet. This judicial custody remand order dated
8.8.2015 is a detailed and speaking order. There is no legal infirmity or perversity in it.

10. Now, coming to the judicial custody remand order dated 21.8.2015 of the accused
person Naveen Kumar through video conferencing, it is evident from the counter affidavit filed by
Sri Ram Karan Yadav, presently posted as Railway Magistrate, Ghaziabad and who has passed the
judicial custody remand order dated 21.8.2015 of the accused person Naveen Kumar. It is proved
that this order was passed by him when the accused person Naveen Kumar was present before him
through video conferencing and on the basis of request made by the Investigating Officer of the
aforesaid matter, judicial custody remand of the accused person Naveen Kumar was granted w.e.f.
21.8.2015 to 3.9.2015.

11. A short counter affidavit of Jainendra Singh Tomar, Sub-Inspector of Police Station
Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad clearly proves the factum of production of the accused person
Naveen Kumar through video conferencing on 21.8.2015 and along with this affidavit has also
been filed the letter of the Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad as Annexure-1 in support
thereof.

12. It would not be out of place to mention here that in the letter dated 02.09.2015 of the
Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad it has been mentioned that there is no facility of retrieving
in the video conferencing.

13. This letter dated 02.09.2015 of the Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad annihilates
and belies the contention of the petitioner-detenue Naveen Kumar in this regard.

14. After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
we do not find any good ground for interference in the matter.

15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
----------
8 All. Abdul Rasheed Vs Ayuktat, Lucknow Division, Lucknow & Anr.
133
(2016) 8 ILRA 133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Writ Petition No.- 558 (MS) Of 2006

Abdul Rasheed ...Petitioner
Versus
Ayuktat, Lucknow Division, Lucknow & Anr. ...Opposite parties

The sole question involved in the instant writ petition is whether the stamp duty is payable on the property as
it stands on the date of execution of deed or demand for additional stamp duty can be created on the
presumption of future or intended change of use to which the property may be put to by the vendee.

Court observed that the authority had proceeded to determine the value on the presumption that though the
land is agricultural land but it has not been purchased for the said purpose. The said presumption does not
appear to be sound and reasonable. It may be added that the report of the Sub-Registrar could not legally
form basis of the impugned orders. There is no material in possession of the respondents to show that on the
date of the execution of sale deed, the land in dispute was not agricultural land. The petitioner has brought
on record copies of Khasra of 1422 Fasli and Khatauni of 1418-1423 Fasli ( issued on 21.4.2015) to show the
land is still recorded in the Revenue records as agricultural land and agricultural activities are being carried
out by the petitioner.

The writ petition is allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr Devendra Kumar Arora, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Karan Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel
for the respondents.

2. The sole question involved in the instant writ petition is whether the stamp duty is
payable on the property as it stands on the date of execution of deed or demand for additional
stamp duty can be created on the presumption of future or intended change of use to which the
property may be put to by the vendee.

3. Abdul Rasheed, the petitioner, by means of a registered sale deed dated 27.8.2002
purchased the 1⁄4 piece of land of Gata no. 126/.242 hectare situate in village Pipariya Dhani
Pargana Atwapipariya, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri from one Karamjeet Singh son of
Jagdish Singh and paid the stamp duty as applicable to agricultural land at the relevant time. After a
long time, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated on the report of
Sub Registrar and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to pay a sum of
Rs. 64,936/- as there has been deficiency in the payment of stamp duty. A report in this connection