Love Turns to Lockup: Allahabad HC Frees Man in POCSO Case Over Botched Arrest Memo

In a sharp rebuke to procedural lapses by police, the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench has ordered the immediate release of Shivam Chaurasiya via a writ of habeas corpus , declaring his arrest and subsequent remand illegal. The Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Mrs. Babita Rani ruled that providing grounds of arrest on a separate sheet—unreferenced in the arrest memo and without witness attestation—fatally violates constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) . The January 28, 2026 arrest stemmed from a Pratapgarh POCSO case, but the court prioritized due process over allegations.

A Relationship Opposed, An FIR Ignited

Shivam Chaurasiya, a 20-year-old from Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh, was allegedly in a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old girl, opposed by her family. On January 21, 2026 , her father lodged FIR No. 15/2026 at Kandhai Police Station under Sections 137(2) (criminal force to deter public servant), 87 (threat of grievous hurt), 64(1) (rape), and 351(3) (criminal force to woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , plus Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act . Claims included renting a room for physical relations, blackmail via intimate video threats, and abandonment.

Chaurasiya was summoned to Narangpur police post on January 28, signed an arrest memo at 7:30 PM, and was held until formal arrest at 10:15 PM. His brother was sent away, and his mother informed by phone. Produced before the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh on January 29 , he was remanded to 14 days' judicial custody. Brother Manas Chaurasiya filed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 47/2026, seeking quashing of the arrest memo, remand order, release, compensation, and action against police.

Petitioner's Plea: No Grounds, No Leg to Stand On

Counsel Skand Bajpai and Abhyudaya Mishra argued the arrest memo (Annexure-2) lacked reasons or grounds beyond FIR details, breaching Supreme Court mandates in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500. They highlighted the magistrate's cursory remand without scrutinizing evidence, citing Allahabad HC's Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine All 2119). Additional demands: Rs 10 lakh compensation and disciplinary action against officers for liberty deprivation.

State's Defense: Remand Cures All, Evidence Stacks Up

Additional Government Advocates Shiv Nath Tilahari and Anurag Verma countered with case diary evidence: victim's statements under BNSS Sections 180/183 , radiological proof of her minority (17 years), and school records. They claimed grounds were orally and separately supplied (petitioner's signatures), invoking SFIO v. Rahul Modi (2019) to argue post-arrest remand validates custody. Further, Kashi Reddy Upendra Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) supported oral/ supplied grounds. Preliminary objection: Habeas corpus inadmissible once offence evident and remanded.

Decoding the Memo: Why "Separate" Spells Trouble

The court meticulously dissected the arrest memo under BNSS Section 36 , noting Columns 12-13 blank—mere FIR sections listed, no substantive grounds. A "separate" grounds sheet (CD 8) emerged, signed only by Chaurasiya, lacking family/locality witness attestation mandated by BNSS Section 36 . No memo reference to it existed, casting doubt on timing—likely post-arrest fabrication.

Drawing from Mihir Rajesh Shah , the bench underscored Article 22(1) 's "sacrosanct" mandate: written grounds "as soon as may be," in understandable language, non-negotiable for life/liberty under Article 21 . Subsequent remand doesn't "obliterate" flaws ( Gautam Navlakha v. NIA , 2022 13 SCC 542), especially mechanical orders. Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana (2024) affirmed habeas corpus as a " writ of right " for illegal detention.

The magistrate's remand, ignoring these voids, was "absolutely mechanical," maintainable under habeas jurisdiction.

Key Observations

"The grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing in order to attend the true intended purpose of Article 22(1) ... Non-compliance... would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal."

"No confidence or trust can be reposed on the said grounds of arrest which are alleged to have been supplied separately... neither column 12 nor column 13... has it been indicated that the grounds of arrest are being given separately."

"Once the edifice goes the super structure collapses meaning thereby that in case the arrest itself is declared illegal even if the remand order has been passed, the same would also be rendered bad."

"A habeas corpus petition would lie when... the remand order is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner."

Freedom Granted, But Probe Continues

The petition succeeded: arrest declared illegal, January 29 remand quashed, Chaurasiya freed (barring other cases). Respondents may re-arrest lawfully. This precedent tightens BNSS compliance, signaling zero tolerance for procedural shortcuts in sensitive POCSO probes—balancing victim justice with accused rights. Future arrests demand integrated, witnessed memos, lest liberty evaporate on technicality alone.