Police must comply with legal procedures in arrests; failure to inform family or follow due process constitutes unlawful detention, justifying compensation.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar.

2. The S.H.O., Makhdumpur Police Station, Jehanabad (Respondent No. 7), the S.H.O., Town Police Station, Jehanabad (Respondent No. 8) and Mr. Pranav Kumar who is the I.O. of this case have appeared in person as advised by learned AC to AG.

3. Since the I.O. is not a party respondent in this case, to let the records complete, Mr. Pranav Kumar, the I.O. of the case be made party Respondent No. 12.

4. In the morning at 10:30 AM when the writ application was taken up for purpose of judgment, on the request of learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar, we have further heard him. We also heard Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 12 at length.

Brief Facts of the Case

5. This writ application has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus for a direction to the respondents to release private Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 from the illegal detention of police.

6. The petitioner who is the son-in-law of Respondent No. 9, brother-in-law of Respondent No. 10 and cousin brother-in- law of Respondent No. 11 approached this Court invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for various reasons. According to him, on 29.04.2025 at 11:00 AM, the police officials of Makhdumpur Police Station, Jehanabad along with the Town Police Station, Jehanabad reached at the house of Respondent No. 9 and took her in police custody. She was taken away from the village without giving any information regarding her arrest to the nearest family members/friends/relatives. It is stated that the husband of Respondent No. 9 is handicapped and is of unsound mind and the son of Respondent No. 9, namely, Aditya Raj (Respondent No. 10) was in examination hall where the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPSC’) Mains Examination was going on. The villagers informed the petitioner about the said arrest.

7. It is further stated that on 01.05.2025 at about 06:30- 07:00 AM, all of a sudden, a police team reached at the house of Respondent No. 11 where Respondent No. 10 was staying for appearing in BPSC Mains Examination. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 both were arrested without giving any proper information to the family members of Respondent No. 11 regarding such arrest. They were also taken away. The petitioner came to this Court with a statement that the petitioner had no knowledge as to where the arrested persons were held/kept. He had filed a petition before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, the DIG, Magadh Range, Gaya through the speed post as well as through e-mail about such arrest and requested them to release private Respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 from illegal detention of police. A copy of the petition dated 02.05.2025 with proof of dispatch by speed post and acknowledgment of e-mail have been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure ‘P1 series’.

8. The petitioner pleaded before this Court that the Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 were picked up and taken into police custody without following the established procedure of law. The police officials did not inform the family members of Respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 which is in violation of Section 48 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’). It is further submitted that the police officials are under obligation and duty bound to comply with the man