The Delhi High Court recently overturned a duty magistrate’s decision ordering the transit remand of an offender who had been detained by the Mumbai Police in Delhi [Rahul Lunia v State – Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors].
The transit detention was revoked by a division bench of Justices Jasmeet Singh and Vikas Mahajan following an argument that the case diary and other pertinent documents were in Marathi and the Magistrate had issued the remand order in an automated way.
The Court ruled that the habeas corpus petition submitted in this case is maintainable after overturning the remand.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, which stated that the affected party may file a habeas corpus petition if the remand is “completely illegal” or the order was made in a “absolutely mechanical manner.”
Therefore, the Court instructed the Duty Magistrate to review the accused’s bail application. [1]
We believe that since the order of remand has been overturned, the habeas corpus petition belongs before this court. The judgement dated 15.06.2023 is therefore reversed, and the duty magistrate is instructed to consider and rule on the petitioner’s application under Section 437 CrPC within two days of receiving the order, the court said.
Rahul Lunia, who was held by a Mumbai Police officer on June 14, petitioned for habeas corpus, and the court granted his request.
According to the argument, the police were required to notify him if they planned to conduct an arrest in accordance with a Mumbai court judgement that forbade detentions without notice.
In his representation of the petitioner, attorney Sahil Mongia said that the Magistrate ought to have viewed the case diary before deciding if a cause for transit remand was sufficient.
However, because the case diary in this instance was written in Marathi, the Magistrate was unable to understand it, and as a result, the transit remand order was automatically approved.
However, the lawyer for the Delhi Police said that the habeas corpus petition in the case is not maintainable and that the magistrate has used his judgement. [2]
In support of the petitioner were advocates Sahil Mongia, Prateek Mehta, Vikas, Rahul Yadav, Sahil Rao, and Megha Mehta.
Kunal Mittal, an advocate, and Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Sanjeev Bhandari represented the State.
Written by- Himanshu Mishra, a student at St. Mother Teresa Law Degree College, Lucknow, 2nd Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Reference:
[1] BAR AND BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-cancels-transit-remand-case-diary-marathi-magistrate-not-understand (last visited on June 20, 2023);
0 Comments