Division Bench dismisses Habeas Corpus petition, deems arrest lawful & rejects appeal certificate application

The Division Bench dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition, finding the arrest lawful and compliant with constitutional provisions and the CrPC. The court rejected the request for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the raised legal questions did not warrant intervention as they were settled by higher courts. The judgment emphasized that the procedure for pronouncing judgment was proper, and the petitioner faced no prejudice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the application for a certificate for appeal was rejected due to the lack of substantial legal questions necessitating Supreme Court intervention.

---

---

Issues:
1. Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for illegal detention.
2. Request for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution.
3. Questions of law regarding constitutional provisions and Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Validity of the procedure adopted for pronouncing the judgment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition alleging illegal detention by the Station House Officer. The Division Bench reserved judgment after hearing both parties.
2. The counsel for the petitioner requested a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133, citing substantial questions of law on constitutional provisions and the validity of remand orders.
3. The counsel argued that the case raised questions on the interpretation of Articles 21(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution, Sections 50(1), 57, and 167 of the CrPC, and the legality of remand orders by the Magistrate.
4. The judgment highlighted that the arrest was lawful, the petitioner had eloped, and the reasons for arrest were disclosed as required by law. The court found compliance with constitutional provisions and the CrPC.
5. The court emphasized that questions raised were propositions of law and did not warrant a certificate for appeal. The interpretation and effect of laws were settled by higher courts.
6. Regarding the procedure for pronouncing judgment, the court stated it was permissible under court rules, and the petitioner faced no prejudice as notice was served, allowing the counsel to make the necessary application.
7. The court concluded that no substantial question of law of general importance necessitating Supreme Court intervention was present, rejecting the application for a certificate to appeal.
8. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and the request for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected, as the case was deemed unfit for appeal.

---