LAKHAN SINGH GURJAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of Constitution seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioners claiming themselves to be parents of corpus (a major lady) who has been kept in One-Stop Center by the impugned order dtd. 10/06/2020 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gwalior City, District Gwalior (M.P.).

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, who are parents of the corpus, have filed this writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus against illegal retention/ detention of corpus - Anjali Gurjar, aged around 21 years, by respondent No.4-Superintendent, One-Stop Center, JA Hospital, Gwalior. It is further submitted that the corpus has been sent to One-Stop Center on the basis of recommendation made by respondent No.6- Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior (M.P) for seeking permission from respondent No.5- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gwalior City, District Gwalior (M.P.) and on the recommendation letter itself, respondent No.5 in casual manner gave direction to retain the corpus in One-Stop Center during on-going COVID-19 pandemic against her will, despite of the fact that corpus is major. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Article 21 of the Constitution having declared that no person shall be deprived of live and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law, a machinery was definitely needed to examine the question of illegal detention with utmost promptitude. The writ of habeas corpus is a device of this nature. The writ has been described as a writ of right which is grantable ex debito justitiae. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. The applicant must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, he shows such a cause and the return is not good and sufficient, he is entitled to this writ as of right. While dealing with a habeas corpus application undue importance is not to be attached to technicalities, but at the same time where the Court is satisfied that an attempt has been made to deflect the course of justice by letting loose red herrings, the Court has to take serious note of unclean approach.