The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine the larger legal question of whether a writ of habeas corpus can be maintained after an accused has been remanded to judicial custody and his bail applications have been rejected, merely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not supplied at the time of arrest.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave appearing with AOR Pawan Reley, for the petitioner submitted that the plea regarding non-supply of the grounds of arrest had been raised as early as July 2025, prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288, which held that the requirement would operate prospectively. Counsel argued that since the issue had been raised before the pronouncement of that judgment, the High Court ought to have considered it.
Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the maintainability of the petition, contending that the petitioner was in custody pursuant to judicial orders refusing bail and was, therefore, not entitled to seek a writ of habeas corpus. He submitted:
“
“His prayer is to pass an order of writ of habeas corpus. In matters where the courts have refused bail, when he is in custody pursuant to court orders, how can there be a petition for habeas corpus?”
The Bench indicated that the issue may require a deeper examination, observing that it involved a larger legal question. Justice MM Sundresh observed:
“
“I think it’s a larger issue we have to consider.”
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Supreme Court directed the State to file its response.