The Delhi High Court has invalidated a transit remand order issued by a Duty Magistrate for an accused arrested in Delhi by the Mumbai Police. The court found that the Magistrate had issued the order without reading the case diary, which was written in a language he did not understand.
A Division Bench of Justices Jasmeet Singh and Vikas Mahajan considered the arguments presented, stating that the case diary and related files were in Marathi, resulting in a mechanical issuance of the remand order. In addition to overturning the remand, the court declared the habeas corpus petition filed in the case as valid.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, which established that if the remand is “absolutely illegal” or if the order is issued in an “absolutely mechanical manner,” the affected party may seek habeas corpus relief.
Consequently, the court directed the Duty Magistrate to review the bail application filed by the accused.
Since the remand order has been invalidated, the court asserted jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition. The court vacated the order dated 15.06.2023 and instructed the Duty Magistrate to consider and decide the petitioner’s application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code within two days of receiving the order.
The court’s decision was made in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by Rahul Lunia, who was detained on June 14 by a Mumbai Police officer. It was argued that the detention violated an order from a Mumbai court, which required the police to provide prior notice if an arrest was intended.
Advocate Sahil Mongia, representing the petitioner, contended that the Magistrate should have examined the case diary before determining the necessity of a transit remand. However, due to the Marathi language used in the diary, the Magistrate was unable to understand its contents, resulting in the mechanical issuance of the remand order.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Delhi Police argued against the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, stating that the Magistrate had already made a decision.
