Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, RITESH KUMAR
Md. Jahid (Minor) – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2026 passed in this case, the Investigating Officer (in short ‘I.O.’), namely, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad is present with the records.
3. This Court has also interacted with him in order to elicit certain material information. The I.O. has produced the case diary of this case and this Court has gone through the same with the assistance of learned AC to AG.
4. The present writ application has been filed in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of the petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the I.O. in this case has arrested the petitioner in complete disregard to the powers of arrest and without following the established procedure of law. The petitioner alleges gross violation of his fundamental right as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. The brief facts of the case are as under:—
One Khushboo Praveen wife of Md. Amzad, resident of village Sapardah Ward No. 8, P.S.- Puraini, District- Madhepura lodged a first information report giving rise to Puraini P.S. Ca
(1)Habeas Corpus Petition – Illegal detention – Direction of DIG, to investigate case assuming allegations to be true is against principles of presumption of innocence which is Cardinal Principle of ....
Unauthorized detention of minors violates fundamental rights; presumption of innocence must be maintained, and lawful procedures need to be followed during arrest.
The failure to disclose grounds for arrest and non-compliance with procedural requirements rendered the detention illegal, warranting intervention via habeas corpus.
Arrest and detention – No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person – It would be prudent and wise for a Police officer that no arr....
The judgment establishes that police must justify arrests and follow legal procedures, particularly in non-bailable offenses, to protect individual liberties.
The court upheld the legality of the arrest and remand of the petitioner, affirming compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
The court established that police officers must comply with statutory requirements before arresting another officer, and failure to do so constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Article 2....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
