Briefs Facts

In the case of Rahul Lunia v State, W.P The petitioner filed a petition under the writ of habeas corpus asking the court to set aside the contested order from the Duty MM, Southeast District Saket Courts dated 15-06-2023 and direct respondents to bring the petitioner before the court.

Argument Advance

According to the petitioner, the Duty Magistrate was supposed to review the Case Diary (CD) and then determine if a case for transit remand had been established. The primary complaint is that the transit remand order was given by the Duty Magistrate despite the Case Diary being in Marathi. As a result, the transit remand order is invalid, and a petition for habeas corpus was filed. 

According to the defendant’s defence attorney, the petitioner is being held in accordance with the court’s instructions from 14-06-2023, hence his detention is lawful. The Investigating Officer will present the accused before the jurisdictional MM, where his bail application would be decided on the merits, he continued, adding that the Duty Magistrate had used his intellect as required.

Analysis of Court Order

The impugned judgement is set aside by the Delhi High Court divisional judge bench of Justices Jasmeet Singh and Vikas Mahajan, with instructions to the Duty Magistrate to consider and rule on the petitioner’s motion under Section 437 CrPC within two days of receiving the order.

The Court stated that after reading the transit remand decision dated 15-06-2023, it appeared that the Duty Magistrate had awarded transit remand without giving the petitioner’s application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code any consideration. The Court subsequently overturned the contested duty magistrate’s ruling dated June 15, 2023 and ordered that the petitioner’s application under Section 437 CrPC be heard and decided on its merits.