BENCH: Justices B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
FACTS:
The present Habeas Corpus writ petition was filed Mrs. Anju Devi, who filed the writ petition under the authority of Article 32 of the Constitution to find information about her grandson’s whereabouts. This case arose in direct relation with the case involving the suicide of the child’s father who was sought to be found by this writ petition. Nikita Singhania & Others vs State Of U.P & Another on 16/12/2024. The facts of the this case are as follows; In December 2024, engineer Atul Subhash tragically died by suicide in Bengaluru, leaving a 24-page suicide note and a video alleging severe harassment by his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, and her family. Despite Nikita’s high income of over Rupees 20 lakh annually, she allegedly demanded increasing maintenance payments and a lump sum of Rupees 3 crore from Atul, whose monthly earnings were around Rupees 80,000. Atul also accused a sessions court judge of seeking a bribe. Following his death, Nikita, her mother, and brother were arrested, while her uncle received anticipatory bail. Here, petitioner in the present case is the mother of the deceased Atul Subhash and she is worried about the whereabouts of her grandson as the child’s custody was given to Mrs. Nikita Singhania, the wife of the deceased. Moreover, the Nikita is presently under trial for the above mentioned case. Due to the relevant circumstances, Anju Devi filed the present writ petition. On December 20, 2024, the Court issued notice to the States of Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana and directed them to ascertain the whereabouts of the child.
ISSUES:
To determine the location of Mrs. Anju Devi’s grandson and present him before the court via virtual means.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court disposed the case after the child was present to the court by Nikita’s counsel via virtual format. The proof of life was presented and the court was satisfied.
During the hearing of the present case the Court was informed that the child was studying in a boarding school and that the mother had taken custody of the child on January 7. She was granted bail with the condition that she must report to the concerned police station in Bangalore every Saturday morning. Given this requirement, it was deemed appropriate to allow the mother to take the child to Bangalore to ensure compliance with the bail conditions. This arrangement was made considering the practicalities of her legal obligations and the need to maintain the welfare and proximity of the child with the mother during this period. Even though at the outset of the hearing Nikita did not produce the whereabouts of the child, after half hour she was able to establish the whereabouts of her son and fulfil the demands of Habeas Corpus petition. Thus, the Court was obligated to dispose of the case.
ANALYSIS:
Habeas corpus, a fundamental legal principle, serves as a safeguard against unlawful detention by requiring a person in custody to be presented before the court to justify their confinement. It ensures the protection of personal liberty, a cornerstone of justice in democratic societies. In cases involving habeas corpus, producing the required individual before the court is crucial, as it allows the judiciary to examine the legality of their detention. Once the individual is presented, the court can swiftly evaluate whether their confinement adheres to legal norms or violates constitutional rights. This prompt resolution often leads to the disposal of the case, as the presence of the person enables the court to ascertain relevant facts and make an informed decision. Which was the case in the present case as soon as the child was shown via virtual means, it initiated the end of writ petition.
info@adhwaitha.com
