High threshold for revisional interference in magistrate's remand orders

Revisional courts exercising jurisdiction over interlocutory or discretionary remand orders passed by Magistrates must maintain high judicial restraint. An order accepting or declining a prayer for police custody, supported by cogent reasons and an evaluation of existing case records, cannot be casually overturned merely because another view is plausible. Revisional judges must specifically address the reasons assigned by the Magistrate and point out foundational flaws or perversity before setting such determinations aside. Passing revision orders that order police custody while glossing over recorded findings regarding completed recoveries and prior extensive interrogations constitutes a perverse exercise of jurisdiction. Revisional courts cannot act as mere approving authorities for police requisitions without scrutinizing the correctness and necessity of the requested remand. Courts must preserve the integrity of lower judicial orders by refusing to disturb discretionary findings that are anchored in factual records. Therefore, unwarranted revisional interference that disregards well-reasoned orders of Magistrates is legally unsustainable. (Pogadadabnda Revathi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana | 2026 INSC 75)