The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for justifying arrest, informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, and complying with the procedural safeguards for arrest and detention.

NAGENDRA RAI, J.

1. The petitioner, an accused in Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 202 of 1999, registered under Ss. 498-A, 307, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has filed the present writ application for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release from unlawful detention perpetrated by order of remand dated 9-10-1999, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna (respondent No. 3).

2. Respondent No. 6 Smt. Annu Singh alias Anamika Priyadarshini, daughter of Dr. Y. K. Sudarshan (respondent No. 7), was married with the son of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay Kumar on 31-1-1996, which was solemnized at Patna. Initially, there was a good relationship between them, but latter on the relationship between them became strained and a matrimonial case bearing No. 151 of 1999 has been filed by the husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty, which is pending before the Family Court, Patna. Respondent No. 6 lodged a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Shri Krishnapuri Police Station on 1-10-1999 at 8-30 p.m. alleging, inter alia, that after the marriage was performed, initially demands were made by her father-in-law, which her father fulfilled, but later on when the demands increased and she laid protest, she was subjected to assault and harassment by her in-laws as well as her husband. On 28-8-1999, while her husband was posted at Hazaribagh and she was with him, her husband asked her to sign a paper and on refusal, she was assaulted and she informed about the said fact to the DIG, and the Commissioner of the Division. On 29-9-1999 at 8 a.m. her mother-in-law also telephoned her from Patna, and threatened her to sign the paper. Thereafter, her husband also persuaded to do the same and on refusal, again she was assaulted brutally by her husband and at about 10-30 p.m.

In the night, she was driven out of the house along with her minor daughter and on a vehicle arranged by the DIG, Hazaribagh, she came to Patna and got herself examined by a Doctor and on 30-9-1999, a threat came from the house of family members of her husband that if a case would be lodged, she and her daughter would be killed.

3. The Officer-in-charge, Shri Krishnapuri Police Station (respondent No. 2) on the basis of the said written report registered a case being Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 202 of 1999 under the aforesaid sections, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application.

4. According to the petitioner, he was arrested on 8-10-1999 at 7 p.m. by the Police and neither any reason was disclosed with regard to his arrest nor was any opportunity given to him to inform his relation about the arrest and he was brought at the Police Station and kept there in the night and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, along with a forwarding report on 9-10-1999 and, thereafter, he was remanded to the judicial custody till 23-10-1999. The petitioner also filed a petition at the time of his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for bail, wherein it was stated that the present case instituted against him was a false one and the same was instituted because of filing of a divorce case by his son against respondent No. 6 and there was no reasonable ground for believing that he had committed the alleged crime. A copy of the said petition has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the main writ application. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that the remand itself was illegal as neither any grounds for arrest was given to the petitioner at the time of his arrest nor was he allowed to contact his relation or lawyer and the remand was also in breach of the provisions contained in S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), as there was nothing to show that the accusation or information against him was well-founded.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer, wherein it is stated that the