IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and S. B. PD. SINGH, JJ.
Cr. WJC No.2417 of 2024
(3.12.2024)
Anand Kumar Thakur ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Constitution of India – Article 22 – Illegal Detention – Petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2024, should have been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours – On the other hand he was produced before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate on 26.10.2024 and he was remanded – The present habeas corpus petition could have examined if the petitioner had approached the court before his remand to judicial custody by jurisdictional Magistrate – An illegality (sic, was) committed by the police officials in not producing the petitioner before the petitioner before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours from the date and time of arrest – On the other hand, in view of the later development that he has been remanded to judicial custody on 26.10.2024 the petitioner cannot invoke habeas corpus petition. (Para 17)
Manoj Gupta @ Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P., decided on 28.03.2023 (AHC); Smt. T. Ramadevi Vs. State of Telangana (WP No. 21912 of 2024) decided on 26.09.2024; Smt. Rita Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2005(1) PLJR 117; Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Rahul Modi, (2019) 5 SCC 266; Shikha Kumari Vs. State of Bihar, 2020(2) PLJR 15; Sanjay Dutt Vs. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410; Kanu Sanyal Vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674 – Relied.
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—In the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought for the following relief(s):—
"(i) In the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the Petitioner before this Hon'ble Court who is illegally detained beyond 24 hours in connection with Haraiya P.S. Case No. 21/24 by the Respondent no. 7 and free him from illegal custody.
(ii) In the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the arrest memo issued against the Petitioner in connection with Haraiya P.S. Case No. 21/24, as the same is devoid of the constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India; and/or
(iii) In the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the Respondents to the release the Petitioner forthwith in connection with Haraiya P.S. Case No. 21/24, as the Petitioner has illegally been detained and kept in police custody for more than 24 hrs without the authority of the concerned magistrate; and/or
(iv) In the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the Respondents to compensate the Petitioner for the hardships suffered by him on account of illegal detention undergone violating the constitutional mandate; and/or
(v) For the grant of any relief for which the Petitioner is entitled in the fact and circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioner is in the business of sale and purchase of building materials under the name and style of Anand Enterprises located at Singhpur, Haraiya, Near-ICP, By-pass, Raxaul, Bihar with GST No. 10ASDPT5945Q1Z6.
3. The allegation is that the petitioner's GST number has been misutilized on 30.08.2024 to the extent of 'Vinzai Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd.'. Such company has been booked for some materials through 'Sugam Parivahan Pvt. Ltd.' and it was required to be sent to the petitioner's firm and a person namely Ajay Singh was mentioned in the column of firm of the petitioner and petitioner was not aware of such person. Copy of the invoice dated 30.08.2024 is placed on record as Annexure-P-1.
4. The above alleged transaction was made known to the petitioner on 14.10.2024 and uncle of the petitioner approached Sugam Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. on e-mail to the extent that they are unable to approach the petitioner who has received delivery of goods and also raised query regarding fake booking of GST number of the petitioner.
5. On 23.10.2024, Haraiya P.S. Case No. 21/24 was registered under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 30(a), 41(1), 31, 33, 38 and 47 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act on the basis of typed statement of informant namely 'Anjan Kumar'. Resultantly, FIR was registered against the petitioner and nineteen others co-accused persons insofar alleged transportation, collected or stored and distributed prohibited spirit to make illegal wine and total 4,000 litres of spirit like liquid material which was stated to have been recovered from the open field situated in front of the Godown of the I.P. Road Lines and within the premises of I.P. Road Line on 22.10.2024 during the time of 10.03 P.M. to 11.20 P.M.
6. Petitioner uncle stated to have approached Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Mothihari through email on 24.10.2024 relating to misutilization of GST number of the petitioner and he is facing atrocity. He has also filed one complaint on 24.10.2024 before S.H.O. Haraiya Police Station, East Champaran. He has also approached Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raxaul Circle, Bihar relating to misutilization of GST number on the same day.
7. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 24.10.2024 from his residence at about 1.10 A.M. but he was remanded to judicial custody on 26.10.2024. Thus, there is an delay of more than 24 hours insofar as producing the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate and it is in violation of Section 87 and 187 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023').
8. In this backdrop, the present petition is filed to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner and to quash the arrest memo in
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi
The detention of an individual beyond 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal.
The Enforcement Directorate officers are not Police officers under CrPC, thus they cannot seek custody beyond the initial 24 hours of arrest unless substantively justified; however, compliance with P....
The requirement to provide written grounds for arrest is a constitutional mandate; failing this renders the arrest and consequent remand illegal, entitling the individual to immediate release.
when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, pri....
Judicial custody requires extension by the Magistrate, without which detention is not automatically illegal; compliance with statutory provisions is necessary for lawful detention.
Failure to produce arrested individuals before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours constitutes illegal detention, impacting subsequent remand validity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.