The Allahabad High Court on Monday ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to apprise it within a week of the exact time and place of the arrest of an advocate during the recent protests here against changes in the citizenship law.
Acting on a habeas corpus plea on behalf of the advocate Mohd Sohaib, allegedly arrested illegally, a bench of justices Shahibul Hasnain and Virendra Kumar, directed the government to submit to it the facts of the advocate's arrest in a sworn affidavit.
Amid allegations by petitioner Mohd Sohaib's counsel A B Solomon that his client was not produced before any court at all after his arrest, the bench also asked Additional Government Counsel S P Singh to include in the affidavit details of the advocate's production before judicial magistrate.
During the hearing last week on the issue, the court had expressed concern when the government counsel Singh was not able to assist the court properly for want of adequate information from the police.
During the hearing, investigating officer Brijendra Kumar Mishra too was present in the court but the bench found that even he was not able to give correct information to the government counsel.
In his habeas corpus plea, advocate Sohaib has alleged that his arrest is illegal as the time and manner of his arrest shown by the police is incorrect and concocted.
He even questioned the proceedings of judicial remand, alleging that he was never produced before any magistrate, rendering his custody illegal.
Sohaib's counsel Solomon had made statement on last hearing before the court that the petitioner was never produced before any magistrate.
Had he been produced before a magistrate, the time and place of the court would have been captured in the CCTV cameras because the entire civil court is having CCTV cameras for surveillance, the petitioner's lawyer had argued.
Expressing concern over the argument, the court directed the government counsel to be prepared to respond to this allegation as well.
As the matter came up for hearing on Monday, the government counsel vehemently opposed the petitioner's contentions that his custody was illegal.
He placed records showing that the petitioner was properly produced for the judicial custody before being sent to jail.
The government counsel sought to file an additional affidavit in this regard to which the court agreed.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
