Dashrath @ Somi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:104243
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a remand order shows apparent non-application of mind, it may be quashed and the detention held illegal, even if the respondents remain free to proceed afresh against the accused in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Krishn Kumar, Navkant Singh Sengar, Sandesh Niranjan, Shravan Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. This petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus commanding and directing the respondents to produce the corpus before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the concerned magistrate to pass just and appropriate order taking into account illegal detention of petitioners and in view of the vitiation of subsequent remands orders in light of laid down law in the matter of Prabir Purkayastha Versus State (NCT of Delhi) LAWS (SC)-2024-5-46, Pankaj Bansal Versus Union of India, LAWS (SC)-2023-10-3, Vihaan Kumar V. State of Haryana, LAWS (SC)-2025-2-20 and Ashish Kakkar v. U.T. Chandigarh; Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl) No. 1662 of 2025 and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, LAWS (SC)-2025-5-148 and as well as order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Manjeet Singh @ Manjeet Singh Chana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, LAWS (ALL)-2025-4-9, Anwar Dhebar v. State of U.P. and 2 others, CRLP No. 12507 of 2024 and Umang Rastogi and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others."
2. Mr. Anupam Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the writ petition and the annexures therewith.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that remand has been granted by the learned Remand Magistrate on printed proforma. It shows absolute non-application of mind and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid V. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCR 295, the arrest memo cannot be sustained. The remand order also cannot be sustained since it is violative of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the submission but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
5. Be that as it may but the fact remains that there is non-application of mind apparent from the remand order dated 21.05.2023. The remand order dated 21.05.2023 passed by the learned Remand Magistrate, District Jhansi in Case Crime No. 102 of 2023 u/s 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Badagaon, District Jhansi, is hereby quashed. The arrest and detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal. He is directed to be released forthwith without waiting for supply of certified copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is allowed.
7. However, it is open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shubham
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free