E-Paper
Alld HC asks JTRI to train magistrates on scrutiny of remand pleas
Warns of administrative action over routine remand orders; orders release of man held in cyber-fraud case
Prefer HTon Google
The Allahabad high court has directed the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, to prepare and disseminate training modules for magistrates to ensure due application of mind in remand proceedings.
The directions followed repeated instances of magistrates routinely authorising police remand without properly scrutinising arrest memos and remand applications.
A division bench of justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, in an order dated October 14, said magistrates could not take shelter behind an overload of judicial work while dealing with remand matters, which directly concern the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The court also warned that it would take serious note of any such abdication of duty in future and could recommend administrative action against erring Magistrates.
The observations came while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Arvind Pandey and another, challenging Pandey’s custody in a cyber-fraud case registered in Kushinagar district. The court found Pandey arrest memo grossly deficient in material particulars and ordered that he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The bench noted that several crucial columns in the arrest memo had been left blank, including those requiring details of the grounds and reasons for arrest, material seized, evidence linking the accused to the offence and relevant electronic evidence. The section relating to witnesses to the arrest was also left blank, as were the particulars of the accused’s next of kin.
The court held that these deficiencies violated Supreme Court judgments, including Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana (2025) and Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra (2026).
“The Magistrate in this case has treated the remand application by the police as a formality and in a routine manner,” the court observed, adding that proper scrutiny could have prevented the need for the habeas corpus petition.
The bench further expressed concern that similar deficiencies had surfaced in several habeas corpus cases, with magistrates failing to act as a safeguard against unlawful deprivation of liberty.
