The Delhi High Court has set aside a previous order by a trial court, which had granted transit remand of an accused to be presented before a court in Mumbai in a cheating case.
In petitioner Rahul Lunia’s submission, it was claimed that he had been unlawfully detained at the GK-1 police station by the investigating officer from the Bandra police station in Mumbai.
The petitioner, in the habeas corpus petition before the high court, argued that the transit remand order was unlawful.
The petitioner’s lawyer, Sahil Mongia, asserted that the trial court could not have determined the merits of the transit remand case as the case diary was in Marathi, a language the court was unfamiliar with.
A vacation bench of Justices Jasmeet Singh and Vikas Mahajan observed that the trial court had not considered the petitioner’s bail application, despite having the authority to do so, when granting the transit remand.
Consequently, the high court set aside the contested order passed by the learned Duty Metropolitan Magistrate and directed the trial court to hear and decide the petitioner’s bail application on its merits.
The bench also affirmed the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, citing a previous ruling that allows individuals to seek habeas corpus if the remand is deemed completely illegal or conducted in a purely mechanical manner.
The state opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner’s custody was not illegal and therefore the present petition was not viable.
The state contended that the trial court had carefully considered the matter and decided that the investigating officer should present the accused before the appropriate court, which would then determine the bail application.
The petition has argued that the transit remand order had been mechanically issued, violating the constitutional provision that guarantees petitioners the right to be informed of the reasons for their arrest.
20230620-162202
