Back
GAUTAM NAVLAKHA – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent
Transit remand is considered a form of judicial custody, not police custody. It is an order passed by a judicial authority to facilitate the transfer of an accused from one jurisdiction to another for investigation or trial purposes. The purpose of transit remand is to ensure lawful custody during the transfer process, and it is granted under judicial supervision to prevent arbitrary detention. It is distinct from police custody, which is an initial detention by police authorities for investigation purposes. Therefore, transit remand falls within the realm of judicial custody, subject to judicial oversight and legal procedures (!) .
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On the basis of FIR No. 4 of 2018 dated 08.01.2018, registered at Vishrambagh Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra, which was one registered under Sections 153A, 505(1B) and Section 34 of IPC to which Section 120(B) was added on 06.03.2018 and still further into which, Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UAPA’, for short), were added on 17.05.2018, and, in which FIR, the name of the appellant was added on 22.08.2018, the appellant came to be arrested from his residence in Delhi on 28.08.2018. The appellant moved Writ Petition No. 2559 of 2018 seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court of Delhi. The High Court, apart from issuing notice, inter alia, ordered that no further precipitate action of removing the appellant from Delhi be taken till the matter was taken at 04:00 P.M.. The Order was passed at 02:45 P.M.. In the meantime, the CMM at Saket, Delhi disposed of an Application seeking transit remand with the following Order:
PS
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no clear markers such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized" in the descriptions. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no case is definitively identified as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed / Cited as Authority]
Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency, 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 334: This case appears to be the primary authority cited multiple times, discussing habeas corpus and judicial custody. It is used as a reference point for subsequent cases, indicating it is treated as an authoritative decision.
Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022 (13) SCC 542: Cited multiple times and seems to be a subsequent decision that references the earlier case to discuss custody and investigation procedures. The repeated references suggest it is treated as good law and an authoritative ruling.
Kapil Wadhwan and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 972: Cited in relation to the law on section 167 CrPC, referencing earlier Navlakha cases. Its placement indicates it is treated as a relevant, authoritative case.
[Distinguished / Differentiated]
The case Pooja Gagan Jain VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 482 mentions "In contrast, in case of Gautam Navlakha (supra)," implying that the case is being distinguished from or compared to Gautam Navlakha, but it does not suggest that the Navlakha case has been overruled or criticized.
[Legal Principles Reinforced]
The cases discussing custody and constitutional safeguards, such as IND_AP_2024_APHC_42024 and INDKER00000476986, cite Gautam Navlakha to reinforce legal principles, indicating continued reliance and treatment as good law.
Many references, such as Yuvraj Yadav VS Adheekshak Kendriya Karagar Naini Prayagraj - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 871, Hemant Soren, S/o Shri Shibu Soren VS Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 428, and others, mention Gautam Navlakha in context but do not explicitly state how they treat the case (e.g., whether they follow, distinguish, or criticize). Without explicit language, treatment remains ambiguous.
The references to "Gautam Navlakha (supra)" in multiple instances suggest reliance but do not clarify if any subsequent case has questioned or limited its authority.
The mention of "the act of the respondent therefore, squarely fall within the parameters laid down in Gautam Navlakha (supra)" indicates adherence but not whether the case has been overruled or criticized.
In summary, the list shows consistent referencing and reliance on Gautam Navlakha, suggesting it is still treated as good law. No explicit indications of overruled or bad law status are present in the provided data.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
