Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Arrest, Cites Procedural Impropriety and Directs Towards Habeas Corpus

Kolkata , West Bengal – The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling on June 9, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by Kamala Chakraborty challenging the arrest of her son, Abhijit Chakroborty . Justice TirthankarGhosh held that the prayers for Mandamus and Certiorari were misconceived for challenging the legality of an arrest based on alleged non-compliance with constitutional safeguards, emphasizing that the appropriate remedy lies in a Habeas Corpus petition before a Division Bench.

Case Background

The petitioner, Kamala Chakraborty , approached the High Court alleging that her son, Abhijit Chakroborty , was illegally arrested on April 19, 2025, in connection with a case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The core grievances included: * Failure to inform relatives about the arrest. * Provision of an arrest-inspection memo with grounds of arrest that allegedly violated settled law. * Custodial physical assault resulting in injuries. * The Learned ACJM, Bidhannagar, allegedly ignored these issues and rejected Abhijit 's bail application on April 28, 2025.

The petitioner sought a declaration that the arrest was illegal, her son's release on bail, and action against the Investigating Officer for alleged custodial torture.

Petitioner's Arguments: Emphasis on Fundamental Rights

Mr. Sourav Bhattacharyya, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the arrest was in "gross violation of the settled proposition of law." He relied heavily on landmark Supreme Court judgments:

* Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) : Underscoring the necessity of furnishing written grounds of arrest to the arrested person to enable them to seek legal counsel and bail. The petitioner cited paragraphs asserting that merely reading out grounds is insufficient.

* Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) : Highlighting the distinction between "reasons for arrest" (formal and general) and "grounds of arrest" (specific and personal), and asserting that non-provision of written grounds vitiates arrest.

* Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) : Reiterating that the requirement to inform of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is mandatory and non-compliance renders the arrest illegal, a duty the Magistrate must ascertain.

The petitioner contended that the documents provided as grounds of arrest were non-compliant, rendering the arrest illegal and entitling the accused to release.

State's Counter: Maintainability and Judicial Discretion

Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Senior Advocate for the State, countered that the writ petition was not maintainable. Key arguments included:

* V. Senthil Balaji vs. State (2024) : A writ of habeas corpus is not generally maintainable against a judicial remand order, and challenges should be through statutory remedies. The Magistrate's role in authorizing detention is a judicial function.

* Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Vivek V. Gawde (2024 SCC Online SC 3722) : High Courts should sparingly interfere with administrative/judicial decisions under Article 226, especially if alternative remedies exist or the challenge is to the merits of a judicial order.

* Indrani Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2014 SCC Online Cal 17573) : A writ petition is not maintainable against a judicial order of a Criminal Court when statutory remedies are available. * The State also pointed out that the Supreme Court had reserved judgment on the necessity of furnishing written grounds of arrest in every IPC case (SLP (Crl.) No. 17132 of 2024).

The State argued that the petitioner was circumventing statutory appeal/revision processes by invoking Article 226.

Court's Analysis: The Proper Legal Recourse

Justice TirthankarGhosh , after considering the arguments and extensive case law, focused on the nature of the remedy sought by the petitioner in light of recent Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Court found the Supreme Court's decision in Kasireddy Upender Reddy –versus- State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2025 INSC 768) to be pivotal. Justice Ghosh quoted extensively from this judgment, which clarified the legal position on challenging arrests:

"The pathbreaking judgment of this Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another...serves as a pivotal reference point...It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional protections against arbitrary arrest and detention...The decision further reinforces the right to legal recourse through habeas corpus petitions, empowering individuals to challenge the legality of their detention effectively." (Quoting Kasireddy Upender Reddy on Vihaan Kumar )

The Kasireddy judgment also differentiated situations:

"In Vihaan Kumar (supra) the case was that there was an absolute failure on the part of the police to provide the grounds of arrest... In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the arrestee, however, the case put up is that those grounds are not meaningful and are bereft of necessary essential information.”

Based on this, Justice Ghosh observed:

"Having duly considered the pleadings, submissions of counsel, and the legal position emerging from precedents cited before this Court, I am not inclined to entertain the reliefs claimed under writs of Mandamus and Certiorari. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy –versus- State of Hrayana and Another, 2025 INSC 768, has authoritatively clarified that the appropriate recourse for challenging arrest and detention is through a writ of Habeas Corpus. Consequently, the present prayers stand misconceived in law."

Furthermore, the Court noted a crucial procedural aspect:

"The Rules of the High Court at Calcutta prescribes that a Habeas Corpus petition is to be preferred before a Division Bench. As such, the Writ Petition in its present form is not maintainable."

The Court also distinguished authorities cited by the petitioner related to preventive detention ( Alka Subhash Gadia , Deepak Bajaj ) as not applicable to arrests in penal code offences.

Final Decision and Implications

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition (W.P.A. No. 9324 of 2025) as not maintainable in its current form.

The judgment underscores that while the substantive rights regarding communication of grounds of arrest (Article 22(1)) are paramount, the procedural mechanism for seeking redress is equally critical. For challenges to the legality of arrest and detention, particularly citing violations of fundamental rights like non-communication of grounds of arrest, the writ of Habeas Corpus is the specified remedy. Moreover, as per the Calcutta High Court's rules, such a petition must be filed before a Division Bench.

This decision serves as a reminder to litigants to choose the appropriate writ and forum when approaching the High Court for relief against alleged illegal detention, guiding them towards Habeas Corpus for such grievances.