Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Himanshu Rajput v. State Of U.P And 6 Others

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19674 of 2025 Court No. - 45

    HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

    HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

    The present petition has been filed praying for compensation to the petitioner because of, what the petitioner alleges to be, illegal detention in Case No. 691 of 2025 registered under Sections 170, 126, 135 of B.N.S.,

    2023.

    It appears that in the proceedings before the Deputy District Magistrate Section 173 B.N.S. has been wrongly transcribed as Section 170. It further appears from the records that the petitioner was sent to District Jail Bijnor because on 12th April, 2025, when he was produced before the Executive Magistrate and was asked to furnish sureties as required under Section 130 B.N.S.S., the petitioner refused to furnish sureties. It be noticed that Case No. 691 of 2025 was registered under Section 130 B.N.S.S. The petitioner claims that the recital in the order dated 12th April, 2025, that the petitioner had refused to furnish sureties is false. When the Executive Magistrate exercises powers under Section 130 B.N.S.S., he acts as a Court and the proceedings are judicial in nature. The correctness of recitals in the order-sheet of the court cannot be tested in any proceedings by the superior court.

    As the correctness of the recitals cannot be tested, this Court cannot enter into the claim of the petitioner as to whether the detention under the order dated 12th April, 2025 was illegal.

    Versus

    Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Singh

    Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

    Himanshu Rajput

    .....Petitioner(s)

    State Of U.P And 6 Others

    .....Respondent(s)

    1

    In view of the aforesaid, we refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

    The petition is dismissed.

    September 3, 2025

    Ranjeet Sahu CRLP No. 19674 of 2025

    2

    (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Himanshu Rajput v. State Of U.P And 6 Others
    (Sep 3, 2025)