Madras High Court Orders Release Of Cop Arrested Without Reasons Despite Complying With BNSS Notice

The Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Dr. Justice P. Murugan was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of Sugumaran, a police officer detained by CB-CID.

The Bench placed reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another (2026), wherein it was held that Section 35(5) of the BNSS imposes an implied prohibition of arrest when person has complied with the notice of appearance under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. To make a subsequent arrest, the police officer must record reasons for it in writing.

“Section 35(5) of BNSS, 2023 mandates that where the noticee complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. The expression 'shall not be arrested' is peremptory and cannot be ignored,” the Court said.

“The fact that the CB-CID did not arrest Sugumaran in the first instance but chose to issue notice under Section 35(3) clearly brings the case on hand under Section 35(5) of BNSS, 2023… We wanted the respondents to satisfy us that proper reasons were recorded for justifying the arrest of Sugumaran when he had duly complied with the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023. We place on record that no material was placed before us to show that the requirement set out in Section 35(5) was complied with. This alone is more than sufficient to declare the arrest and remand of Sugumaran as illegal,” the Court held.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by one Thirumaran against one Saravanan, alleging offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Based on this, an FIR was registered by the detenu Inspector Sugumaran on July 24, 2026. However, Sarvanan alleged that Thirumaran was set up to file a false case against him by Jeyasri Ramasamy, his partner at A to Z Speciality Hospital in Thanjavur. He also alleged that the probe in the case was not being conducted properly. Based on this, Director General of Police transferred this case to CB-CID on August 15, 2026. Subsequently, CB-CID re-registered the case on September 10, 2026.

Meanwhile, Saravanan and Jeyasri buried the hatchet—entering into an unregistered MoU and a registered sale agreement dated August 27, 2026, whereby Sarvanan was to pay Rs 24 crores to buy out Jeyasri's share.

However, as the case got re-registered by CB-CID, Sarvanan made a U-turn, claiming he was coerced into the settlement and forced to pay Rs 5 crores to Inspector Sugumaran and higher-ups. Consequently, the CB-CID filed an alteration report, dropped the original charges, and arrested Inspector Sugumaran on October 9, 2026.

His bail application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, on October 16, 2026, prompting his wife to file the present Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court.

Articles 21, 22 must be followed in letter & spirit

The High Court noted that the detenu was not informed of the grounds of arrest, and that the Magistrate made efforts to show how such non-service of grounds did not make a difference. The Court ruled that this amounted to a violation of the constitutional mandate.

“We remind the officer that Article 21 and 22 are sacrosanct. The interpretation placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said two Articles constitutes the law of the land. It must be followed in letter and spirit. Certain fundamental rights are non-negotiable. Even the doctrine of waiver would not apply. Even recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2026) 1 SCC 500, categorically posited that the mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution is unambiguous and clear and that therefore, the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as they can be,” the Court said.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2025), the Bench said that the remand of an accused violates the constitutional mandate under Article 22, and all subsequent proceedings become illegal if the arrestee has not been informed about the grounds of arrest.

“There is no finding that the grounds of arrest were served on the detenu. On the other hand, the learned Magistrate was at pains to show that non-service of the grounds of arrest did not make a difference considering the fact that the applicant is a police officer and his spouse is a practising lawyer. Respectfully applying the ratio laid down in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799 and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2026) 1 SCC 500, we hold that the arrest and remand of the petitioner's husband is a rank violation of the constitutional mandate,” the Court held.

Highlighting the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22, the Court said,

“When we apply Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to terrorists, it would be inequitable to deny the protection of Part III of the Constitution to police officers who are on the wrong side of the law. To us, the character of the person and the nature of allegations levelled against him are irrelevant. We will only see if the litigant has made out a case for our interference.”

Alteration report not normally filed for entirely different cause of action

The Bench noted that the CB-CID, by filing the alteration report, not merely supplanted the original FIR, but discarded the original informant's allegations completely by letting go of the primary accused and substituting them with new accused on an entirely different factual matrix. This, the Court said, amounted to non-compliance with due process while dealing with Sugumaran.

It further stated that the CB-CID erred in dropping charges under the SC/ST Act without putting the complainant, Thirumaran, on notice.

“We have our own serious doubts as to whether an alteration report can switch horses mid-stream. An alteration report is filed when graver offences appear to have been committed. The offence for which alteration report is filed must have a direct link with the offence originally registered. For instance, an FIR may be registered for the offence of attempt to murder. The injured might die. Then, alteration report is filed for including the offence of murder,” the Court said.

“An alteration report is not normally filed for an entirely different cause of action. The allegation that Sugumaran extorted money from Saravanan is certainly a different cause of action. Saravanan, the erstwhile second accused, became the source of an entirely different accusation against the detenu, concerning different transaction, on different dates, with a different alleged victim. When such role reversals take place, the prosecution would do well to start on a clean slate,” the Bench added.

Accordingly, the High Court declared Sugumaran's arrest, detention and subsequent remand illegal and directed the authorities to release him.