Habeas Corpus Can't Be Granted Despite Non-Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest After Judicial Remand: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be maintained to challenge an arrest on the ground that the arrestee was not communicated the grounds of arrest, once judicial remand orders have been passed, even though such non-compliance amounts to a violation of the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 249]A Division Bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the son of former Rajasthan minister Dr. Mahesh Joshi, who alleged that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to the detenue or his family at the time of his arrest in a corruption case. While finding that there was non-compliance with the mandatory requirements governing arrest, the Court held that it could not grant habeas corpus relief because the detenue was already in judicial custody pursuant to remand orders.The petitioner contended that although an objection regarding non-compliance with the arrest procedure was raised before the Special Judge at the time of the first remand, the application remained undecided while police custody was granted.The State opposed the petition, arguing that the grounds of arrest had been substantially communicated and that once the Special Judge had authorised the remand, followed by subsequent judicial remand orders, a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable. It relied on Supreme Court decisions including State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee and V. Senthil Balaji v. State to contend that the legality of custody flowing from judicial remand could not be examined in habeas corpus proceedings.After examining the record, the High Court found that the ACB had failed to produce any document showing that the grounds of arrest were ever communicated in writing to the detenue. It observed that merely informing the arrestee of the offences alleged against him could not be equated with communicating the "grounds of arrest," which must meaningfully disclose the basis and reasons for depriving a person of liberty.The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that communication of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 22(1). It noted that the grounds must ordinarily be furnished in writing in a language understood by the arrestee, and failure to comply renders the arrest illegal.The Court also expressed serious concern over the conduct of the investigating agency, observing that the ACB appeared to have confused the "grounds of arrest" with the "reasons for arrest". It found inconsistencies between the ACB's initial and subsequent replies regarding whether the grounds had been communicated to the detenue or to his family, and remarked that the subsequent reply appeared to introduce facts absent from the earlier response.The Bench further criticised the Special Judge for not deciding the objection regarding non-compliance with the mandatory arrest safeguards before granting police remand. Referring to Vihaan Kumar, it observed that a Magistrate is duty-bound to verify compliance with Article 22(1) before authorising remand because an illegal arrest cannot form the basis of a valid remand order.However, the Court held that in the peculiar facts of the case, it could not issue a writ of habeas corpus. It noted that after the initial remand, several judicial remand orders had been passed and the application challenging the legality of the arrest had already been decided by the Special Judge. In view of the settled law governing the limited scope of habeas corpus once custody is backed by judicial orders, the petitioner was left at liberty to challenge the Special Judge's order through appropriate legal proceedings, the Court said.Before parting, the Bench observed that both the Rajasthan Police and judicial officers require training on the Supreme Court's decisions in Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah to ensure meaningful compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution at the earliest stage of arrest.“…in the instant case, neither the detenue nor his family was informed about of the ground of arrest. We have very serious doubt about the understanding of police in the State of Rajasthan, in particularly the material indicate that the ACB is not aware about the basic fundamentals of the ground of arrest...it was the duty of the Judge to consider the legality of arrest on 07.05.2026, but the Sessions Judge who was appointed as the Special Judge, (PC Act cases) has not complied the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. We failed to understand why the compliance has not been ensured by him as the duty was casted upon him…”In this...

Habeas Corpus Can't Be Granted Despite Non-Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest After Judicial Remand: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Habeas Corpus Can't Be Granted Despite Non-Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest After Judicial Remand: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers