Manubhai Ratilal Patel Through Ushaben v. State Of Gujarat And Others

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 597

CASE NAME	Manubhai Ratilal Patel Through Ushaben v. State Of Gujarat And Others
CASE NO.	Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6468 of 2012)
CITATION	AIR 2013 SC 313, 2013 (1) ALD 875 (Cri), 2013 (1) ALT SC 11 (Cri), 2013 CriLJ 160, 2013 (2) GLR 1500, JT 2012 (9) SC 394, 2013 (1) LW 220 (Cri), 2012 (9) SCALE 559, 2013 (1) SCC 314
COURT	Supreme Court (India)
PETITIONER	Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben
RESPONDENT	State of Gujarat & others
JUDGE	K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.
COUNSEL	For Petitioner: Sushil Kumar Jain, B.M. Mangukiya, Puneet Jain, Christi Jain and Pratibha Jain, Advs. For Respondent: Hemantika Wahi, Jesal and Nandani Gupta, Advs.
ISSUE	Indian Penal Code – Sections 114, 409, 467, 468, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Sections 2, 167, 167(2), 173, 309, 437, 439, 482; Constitution of India – Article 22

FACTS

The appellant (referred to as “the accused”) was Accused in an FIR registered for colourful offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

The accused filed a solicitation in the High Court of Gujarat to quash the FIR and stay further proceedings. The High Court issued a stay order on the disquisition but didn’t intrude with the order of remand of the accused to police guardianship.

The accused filed a bail operation, which was rejected by the justice.

The accused also filed a habeas corpus solicitation before the High Court, claiming that the remand order was illegal due to the stay on disquisition.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER

The accused argued that the disquisition was stayed by the High Court, and thus, the remand order was illegal. The accused contended that the remand order was a part of the disquisition and should be considered covered by the stay granted by the High Court.

The accused claimed that their detention was unlawful, and they should be released as long as the stay order was operative

ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT (STATE)

The State argued that the disquisition had formally taken place before the stay order, and the remand order was separate from the disquisition.

The State contended that the order of remand couldn’t be treated as taboo due to the stay on disquisition.

The State stressed that the accused had been arrested before the stay order and argued that the remand order was justified.

JUDGMENT

The High Court held that the remand of the accused to guardianship couldn’t be considered illegal or in conflict with the stay order on the disquisition. The court observed that the remand order was a judicial act and not part of the disquisition. The court emphasized that the order of remand by the justice wasn’t covered by the stay granted by the High Court. The High Court concluded that the guardianship of the accused couldn’t be nominated illegal and, thus, a writ of habeas corpus wasn’t warranted.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court comprising judges K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, considered the arguments presented by both parties. They reviewed the alleged legal crimes, assessed the credibility of the substantiation and testaments, and determined the fairness of the trial and posterior proceedings. The court delivered its judgment on September 28, 2012, either upholding the persuasions and rulings or capsizing them, grounded on the graces of the case and the interpretation of the applicable sections of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure( CrPC), and the Constitution of India, Article 22.

written by Shipra Vidyarthi intern under legal vidhiya