Case Details: Mohd. Akib vs. Union of India (2026) 43 Centax 224 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Siddharth & Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Kaustubh Tewari & Umesh Chandra Shukla, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Kuldeep Kumar, A.S.G.I & Dhananjay Awasthi, C.S.C., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
A detenue was arrested for alleged GST offences at Dehradun. Thereafter, the detenue was produced before a remand Magistrate at Meerut without obtaining a transit remand order from the competent Magistrate at the place of arrest. No such transit remand order was placed on record by the department. A writ of habeas corpus was filed challenging the arrest, remand and detention. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that a person arrested in one State could not be taken before a remand Magistrate in another State without first obtaining a transit remand from the competent Magistrate at the place of arrest. The Court observed that no transit remand order had been obtained or produced on record by the department. It therefore held that the arrest and the consequent remand stood vitiated. Accordingly, the detention was held to be illegal, the writ of habeas corpus was allowed, and the release of the detainee was directed.
List of Cases Cited
-
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal — AIR 1997 SC 610 — Referred [Para 10]
- Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka — (2024) 4 SCC 749 — Referred [Para 9]
- Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India — (2025) 27 Centax 425 (S.C.) = 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 225 (S.C.) = 2025 (392) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 11]
- Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. — 2026 INSC 115 — Referred [Para 4]
