Karan Sahu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:104246
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a remand order shows non-application of mind by the Magistrate, the order is liable to be quashed and the arrest and detention consequent upon it must be held illegal, notwithstanding that the respondents retain the right to proceed against the petitioner afresh 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. 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 for the State and Mr. Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the submission and submitted that the amount involved in this case is more than Rs. 6.5 crores and the petitioner has committed the alleged offence in collusion with the employees of the company of the informant.
5. Be that as it may but the fact remains that there is non-application of mind apparent from the remand order dated 31.08.2025. The remand order dated 31.08.2025 passed by the learned Remand Magistrate, District Lalitpur in Case Crime No. 881 of 2025 u/s 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sahnita (B.N.S), 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Lalitpur, 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