Recently, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of an arrest and subsequent detention in connection with an FIR registered in Unnao district. The petitioner contended that despite being arrested and remanded to judicial custody, the mandatory constitutional safeguards relating to communication of grounds of arrest were completely ignored by the police authorities.
Brief Facts
The FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao. The Petitioner was arrested and later produced before the Magistrate, where a remand order was passed. According to the petitioner, the arrest memo merely mentioned the case crime number and did not disclose the actual grounds of arrest in writing. Relying upon recent Supreme Court judgments interpreting Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged both the arrest and remand order as unconstitutional and sought immediate release through a writ of habeas corpus.
Contentions of Petitioner
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the arrest was illegal because the police failed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest or within the legally permissible time. It was contended that merely mentioning the FIR number in the arrest memo could not satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS. The Petitioner further submitted that once the arrest itself was illegal, the subsequent remand order also became unsustainable in law.
Contentions of State
The State, through the learned AGA, did not dispute the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases concerning communication of grounds of arrest. However, the authorities attempted to justify the action by referring to the arrest memo and subsequent proceedings. The State also filed an affidavit stating that reports had been sought from senior police authorities and appropriate action would be taken after consideration by the Government.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) requiring communication of grounds of arrest is “not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form of fundamental rights.” The Court noted that the arrest memo supplied to the petitioner merely mentioned the case crime number and completely failed to disclose the actual grounds of arrest in writing. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized that “non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal.”
The Court further remarked that once the arrest itself becomes illegal, every consequential proceeding arising out of such arrest also collapses. Referring to the settled principle that “once the edifice goes the super structure collapses,” the Bench held that the remand order based on the illegal arrest could not survive independently. The Court also criticized the State authorities for continuing the petitioner’s incarceration despite earlier judicial observations declaring the arrest unconstitutional.
Expressing serious concern over the conduct of the authorities, the Court stated that the petitioner had lost his personal liberty “for no fault on his part but on account of the authorities not following the Constitutional safeguards.” The Bench further observed that if such “non-application of mind” existed at the level of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), it reflected poorly on the functioning of the State machinery as a whole. The Court reiterated that “the life and personal liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed by the respondent authorities/State in gross violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Decision of the Court
The Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and declared the arrest of the petitioner illegal. Consequently, the remand order passed by the Magistrate was also set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith, provided he was not wanted in any other case. Additionally, considering the prolonged illegal incarceration, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs.10 lakhs upon the State Government, while granting liberty to recover the amount from the erring officials in accordance with law.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Through His Son Mudit Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Department U.P. Lucknow & Ors.
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 137 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Moin and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Advocate for the Appellant/Petitioner: Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, Prashant Tiwari
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
