Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has directed the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, to prepare and disseminate training modules for judicial magistrates after highlighting repeated instances of magistrates failing to properly scrutinise remand applications and routinely authorising remand.In a remand order, an accused person is kept in custody either in a police lock-up (police custody) for interrogation or sent to jail (judicial custody).A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that magistrates cannot take shelter behind an overload of judicial work when dealing with remand proceedings, which directly concern the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (rights of an arrested person) of the Constitution.The court also warned that, in future, such acts of abdication of duty by magistrates would be taken serious note of by the high court and that even administrative action could be recommended.The court made these observations while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Kushinagar resident Arvind Pandey, challenging his custody in a cyber-fraud case. The court ordered his release after finding that his arrest memo was grossly deficient in material particulars.While dealing with the habeas corpus petition, the court had earlier sought an explanation from the district judge, Kushinagar, on the remand granted to the accused despite deficiencies in the arrest memo. In his explanation dated October 3, 2026, the magistrate admitted his error and sought the court’s pardon. He stated that, owing to an overload of judicial work, particularly bail applications, he had not examined the police remand application with the necessary vigilance.The court, however, rejected the explanation, observing that remand duty was extremely important and directly related to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The magistrate cannot take shelter behind an overload of judicial work, the court said.The court observed that the magistrate had treated the police remand application as a formality and dealt with it routinely. It added that had the magistrate been vigilant, the habeas corpus petition would not have been necessary.The court observed that the magistrate’s lapse was not isolated. It noted that in several cases, the magistrate, who should have acted as a sentinel on the qui vive, had abdicated his duty. To address the issue, the court directed the director of JTRI, Lucknow, to forthwith look into the matter, prepare training modules for magistrates and disseminate them as soon as possible.On the merits of the case, the court found that the arrest memo of the accused was grossly deficient in material particulars. The case alleged that his bank account was a mule account through which co-accused persons transferred money obtained through cyber fraud.The court noted that crucial details, including the reasons for the arrest, particulars of the seized material, relevant electronic evidence and details of the accused’s next of kin, were left blank or inadequately recorded. It held that the arrest memo violated the Supreme Court’s judgments in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. The bench also expressed concern over recurring deficiencies in arrest memos.While allowing the petition, the court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case.
