The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, has ordered the release of a detenue in a habeas corpus petition after finding that the arrest was carried out in violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards relating to communication of grounds of arrest.
The case concerned the arrest of the petitioner in connection with an FIR under Sections 87 and 137(2) of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner contended that no proper grounds of arrest were furnished to him or his family, thereby rendering the arrest illegal and vitiating the subsequent remand order. The State, however, relied on the arrest memo and a separate document containing grounds of arrest.
Upon examining the record, the Court found that while the arrest memo bore signatures of the petitioner and his mother, it did not contain specific grounds of arrest. The purported “separate” grounds of arrest, though signed by the petitioner, were neither attested by a family member or independent witness nor countersigned in compliance with Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023. The Court held that such a procedure defeats the mandatory requirement of preparing a valid arrest memorandum and communicating lawful grounds of arrest.
Relying extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 (1) SCC 500, the Bench reiterated that informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a sacrosanct constitutional mandate under Article 22(1), forming part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Non-compliance, the Court held, renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The Court further observed that the Magistrate had granted remand mechanically without examining whether the arrest complied with mandatory legal requirements. It noted a recurring pattern of non-compliance by authorities despite clear directions of the Supreme Court.
In view of these findings, the Court directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, subject to not being wanted in any other case. Additionally, taking serious note of the violation, the Court directed the Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit explaining why exemplary costs should not be imposed for such illegal detention.
The matter has been listed for further hearing, with a warning that failure to file the affidavit would require the personal appearance of the concerned official before the Court.
Appearances:
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd.altaf Mansoor, Aditya Vikram Singh, Aviral Raj Singh, Tanay Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.,
