Is Supplying Grounds On Separate Paper Valid When Not Referenced In Arrest Memo? Allahabad High Court Answers
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has granted relief in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, observing that supplying grounds of arrest on a separate paper to the accused is invalid when the same is not referenced in the arrest memo and lacks witness attestation.
The bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani held:
"As per Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, under which the arrest memo is to be issued, it is categorically provided that the memorandum of arrest would be attested by atleast one witness who is the member of a family of a person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made duly countersigned by the person arrested".
In this case, the Petitioner and the alleged victim-girl were in a consensual relationship, which was opposed by the victim's family. The alleged victim's family lodged an FIR against the boy under Sections 137 (2), 87, 64 (1), 351 (3) BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act. It was alleged that the petitioner blackmailed the girl with the threat of releasing intimate videos online.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was called to the police chowki where he was compelled to sign the arrest memo and he was arrested there. His brother was instructed to return from the chowki, and the arrest was communicated to the petitioner's mother by telephone. It was pleaded that the arrest memo did not disclose any grounds for arrest.
It was further argued that the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh, did not advert to the evidence and sent the petitioner to 14-day judicial custody. Accordingly, a writ petition for habeas corpus was filed before the High Court.
Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court observed that nobody could be detained without being informed about the grounds of arrest. It held that the "grounds of arrest are mandatorily to be given to the arrestee".
The Court observed that in the arrest memo, only sections under which the case crime had been registered were mentioned but no grounds or reasons for arresting the petitioner were provided. On this, the Court also observed that the State Counsel had produced the reasons for arrest, which were only signed by the petitioner.
"The said separate grounds of arrest have been perused by the Court but no confidence or trust can be reposed on the said grounds of arrest which are alleged to have been supplied separately to the petitioner. The reasons are not far to seek. Apart from the fact that the said reasons for arrest are separate provided on separate paper and do not form part of the arrest memo, the other aspect of the matter is that neither column 12 nor column 13 of the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026 nor anywhere in the arrest memo has it been indicated that the grounds of arrest are being given separately".
Since there was no witness signature on the grounds of arrest, the Court concluded that the grounds of arrest were prepared either concurrently with or subsequently to the arrest memo.
Reply on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation Agency, the Court observed that where a remand order is passed mechanically, a habeas corpus petition is maintainable.
Noting that the remand order was passed in a mechanical manner affecting the life and liberty of the petitioner, the Court directed that the petitioner be set free.
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Skand Bajpai, Abhyudaya Mishra
Counsel for Respondent: Shri Shiv Nath Tilahari & Shri Anurag Verma
Case Title: Shivam Chaurasiya Thru. His Brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76