The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, to prepare and disseminate training modules for Magistrates after flagging repeated instances of Magistrates failing to properly scrutinize remand applications and routinely authorizing remand.

A 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 Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

The Court also warned that in future, such acts of abdication of duty by the Magistrate shall be taken serious note of by the HC and even administrative action can be recommended.

The Court made these observations while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Arvind Pandey and another, challenging Pandey's 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 Bench, however, rejected the explanation as it observed that remand duty was “extremely important” and directly related to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

The Magistrate cannot take shelter behind the overload of judicial work, the Court said.

"Remand matters are also a part of judicial work itself, because it requires the Magistrate to apply his mind and if need be, in a particular case, decline remand, setting forth the accused at liberty on his personal bond, if need be", the bench remarked.

The Court observed that the Magistrate 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 Bench 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 the 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.

"…it appears that the police is deliberately doing this in order to allow the accused to take the benefit of that error and get an order of release through a writ of habeas corpus, in matters where if the arrest memo had been filled perfectly, even bail may not have been granted".

Allowing the petition, the Court directed that petitioner no. 1 be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.