Bail and Transit Remand: Greta Thunberg 'toolkit' case

By Anupam Kawde|Updated : February 18th, 2021

Shantanu Muluk who has been allegedly involved in creating a 'toolkit' related to farmers' protests, was granted transit anticipatory bail by the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 16, 2021). Shantanu Muluk, a resident of Maharashtra's Beed district, has been given the transit anticipatory bail by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court for 10 days.
This is to be noted that 22-year old Disha Ravi (who's in police custody since Sunday), Shantanu and Nikita Jacob, are accused of a creating a toolkit that was shared by Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg. Greta had shared the toolkit to lend her support to the ongoing farmers' agitation against Centre's three new farm laws.

In the document, various urgent actions, including creating a Twitter storm and protesting outside Indian embassies, were reportedly listed which were needed to be taken to support the farmers' protest.

The law about the arrest of a person:

  • According to Article 22 of the Constitution of India, every person who is “arrested and detained in custody” has to be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of the arrest — the period excludes the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court.
  • No person can be kept in custody beyond the period of 24 hours without an order of a magistrate.
  • Section 56 of the CrPC states that the person arrested has to be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay.
  • According to Section 167 (2) of CrPC, when the Magistrate before whom the accused person has been produced does not have the jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, the judicial officer is required to forward the accused to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.
  • Depending upon the case, the jurisdictional magistrate can authorise detention of the accused either by the police or send the person in judicial custody.

Procedure for applying for anticipatory transit bail:

  • When a person is apprehending arrest by the police of a state other than where they are at present, they approach the nearest competent court for a transit anticipatory or pre-arrest bail. The court does not have jurisdiction over the place where the case is registered or where crime has been alleged to have been committed but since the question of personal liberty is involved, the High Courts across India generally allow such prayer depending upon the merits of the case.
  • The relief is sought to seek temporary protection from arrest and simultaneously get time to approach the appropriate court of that place, wherefrom the police has come or where the case is registered, for a similar pre-arrest bail. Muluk argued before the Bombay Bench at Aurangabad on Tuesday that it would take time for him to reach New Delhi from his residence in Beed, engage an advocate and file for anticipatory bail.
  • While the police objected to the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad bench, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi cited the law laid down earlier by a division bench of the High Court, according to which when the person is apprehending arrest in a case in some other state, he should have remedy of applying to the Bombay HC if the arrest is likely to be effected within its jurisdiction and even if the offence might have been committed in some other state.

Transit Remand and its Requirement:

  • Since the arrested person is required under the law to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, they are produced by the police of the other state – which has registered the case – before the nearest magistrate of the place from where the person has been arrested to get a transit remand. This is done to comply with the provisions of law regarding the production of the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours since it may not be otherwise possible due to travel from one state to another.
  • The application is filed by the police which has come to arrest the accused, before the nearest magistrate of that area where the accused is at present or residing. Delhi High Court in Gautam Navlakha vs State (NCT of Delhi) in 2018 held that “the Magistrate examining the transit remand application is not required to go into the adequacy of the material, he should nevertheless satisfy himself about the existence of the material”. It also held that the Magistrate should ask the person arrested and brought before him whether he has been informed of the grounds of arrest and whether he was required to consult and be defended by any legal practitioner of his choice.
  • The apex court last year said the Delhi HC judgment shall not be treated as precedent and ordered that the questions of law are kept open. However, the apex court in different judgments has also held and reiterated that a Magistrate should not pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner.

===========================================

Crack CLAT 2021 & Reach Your Dream NLU! So, why wait? 
CLAT 2021: A Comprehensive Course:
Start Free Trial Now! 

byjusexamprep

================================== 

Attempt Daily Current Quizzes Here  

Read Daily Current Affairs Article Here

======================= 

Crack CLAT 2021 & Reach Your Dream NLU! So, why wait? 

CLAT 2021: A Comprehensive Course:

Start Free Trial Now!

Thank You.
 
Prep Smart. Stay Safe. Go BYJU'S Exam Prep.

Happy Learning!

Comments

write a comment

Follow us for latest updates