IMPORTANT POINT
A writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted if detention is legally sanctioned; procedural delays due to valid medical conditions do not render custody illegal.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition, in the nature of Habeas Corpus, has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

“ Present application is being filed to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for issuance of a direction to the respondents authorities to release the petitioner from illegal custody in connection with Benta P.S.Case No. 133 of 2025 dated 06.08.2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 3387 of 2025 registered for offences under section 103, 61 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of Arms Act as the custody of petitioner is completely illegal under provision 46(2) 47 and 58 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, and Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga by which the learned Court below without seeing the provision as mentioned above, send the petitioner in judicial custody and as such the custody of petitioner is completely, unjustified and clearly violation of provision as mentioned above.”

3. The brief facts, as alleged, are that the prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of respondent no. 9, pursuant to which Benta P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025 dated 06.08.2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 3387 of 2025, was registered against the petitioner and others. As per the informant, on 05.08.2025 at about 05:30 P.M., he received information that the petitioner had shot his son, Rahul Kumar, by firearm. Upon reaching the postmortem house at about 09:00 P.M., he found his son dead. It was further alleged that the petitioner had gone to the place of occurrence along with his two sons and wife. The informant also stated that the petitioner’s daughter, Tanu Priya, had solemnized marriage with the deceased while both were studying in a B.Sc. Nursing College, and that owing to the said marriage, the petitioner had earlier lodged a case at Banagaon Police Station. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet No. 198 of 2025 dated 07.11.2025 was submitted under Section 103 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 (1-B)(a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner was arrested on 05.08.2025 at 05:40 P.M. he was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga only on 12.08.2025, i.e., after seven days, which is in violation of Section 58 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that grounds of arrest were neither communicated at the time of arrest nor at the time of his production before the Magistrate, resulting in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inVihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13320 of 2025), and Minir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 along with connected matters )

6. Upon hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perusal of the entire materials available on record, the core issue that arises for consideration in the present case is: “Whether, in the facts of the present case, the custody of the petitioner can be said to be illegal or without authority of law, on account of the alleged delay in production before the M