Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sangeeta K. Vishen, D. M. Vyas, JJ.
Sagar Ambaram Fultaria Thro. Ambaram Thobhanbhai Fultaria – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.3662 of 2026
Decided On : 21-05-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr Ghanshyam Upadhyay For Mr Denish V Mavadhiya
For the Respondent: Mr Utkarsh Sarma, APP
Constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 are mandatory. Failure to communicate grounds of arrest effectively, obtain transit remand for interstate arrests, or produce the arrestee before a magistrate within 24 hours renders the detention unconstitutional, and such illegality is not cured by subsequent remand or charge-sheets.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22(1), 22(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 47, 58, 187 - Habeas Corpus - Illegal arrest and detention - Mandatory requirement of communicating grounds of arrest to the arrestee effectively and in a language understood by the arrestee - Provision of Article 22(1) is a mandatory constitutional safeguard - Failure to produce the arrestee before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours (excluding transit time) vitiates the arrest - Absence of transit remand for interstate arrest renders detention illegal. (Paras 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21)
(B) Constitutional Mandate - The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right - It is not merely procedural but mandatory - Filing of charge-sheet or subsequent remand orders cannot validate an arrest that was unconstitutional at its inception. (Paras 11, 16, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged illegal detention, claiming that their movement was restricted by investigative authorities days before the formal date of arrest shown in official records. No transit remand was obtained to bring the petitioner from another state, and the petitioner was not produced before the nearest magistrate within the constitutionally mandated 24-hour window. The petitioner further argued that the grounds of arrest were never communicated, either orally or in writing, in a manner that was understood.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's liberty was curtailed from the moment they were brought under the control of the investigating agency at the place of origin. The Court rejected the argument that the interim period before formal arrest was merely for a preliminary inquiry. It held that the absence of transit remand for an interstate operation and the failure to produce the petitioner within the statutory 24-hour time limit, compounded by the failure to communicate grounds of arrest effectively, rendered the detention unconstitutional and void.
Issues: Whether the arrest was in accordance with the procedure established by law; whether the petitioner was produced before the nearest magistrate within the prescribed time limit; and whether the constitutional obligation to communicate the grounds of arrest was fulfilled.
Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22 are non-negotiable and apply to all offences. An arrest made in violation of these mandates is void ab initio. Subsequent remand orders or the filing of a charge-sheet cannot cure the constitutional illegality of an arrest, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to immediate release.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released forthwith.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of facts and procedural history of the habeas corpus petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding the legality of initial detention, transit remand, and communication of arrest grounds. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court holds that initial custodial control triggers arrest, requiring constitutional compliance regardless of subsequent remand orders. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. mandatory nature of transit remand for inter-state arrests and constitutional duty to communicate arrest grounds. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. non-compliance with article 22(1) fundamental rights vitiates arrest and renders subsequent remand orders invalid. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. operational order directing immediate release of the petitioner due to illegal detention. (Para 24 , 27) |
| 7. judicial commentary regarding decorum and conduct of legal counsel during proceedings. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
1. In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to release the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with the FIR No. 11189003250401/2025 lodged with Morbi City, A Division Police Station, Morbi for the offences punishable under sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 349, 3(5), 61, 229(1), 235 and 236 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNS”). For ease of reference, the prayers prayed for by the petitioner are reproduced hereinbelow:
“a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus thereby directing the Respondents to release the Petitioner forthwith from illegal arrest and detention in connection with the FIR No. 11189003250401/2025 of Morbi City A Division Police Station, Morbi, State of Gujarat (Charge Sheet No. 528/2025 pending on the file of Ld. CJM, Morbi, State of Gujarat), in exercise of the extra-ordinary powers vested with this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
b) that pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct release of the Petitioner on bail forthwith in connection with the FIR No. 11189003250401/2025 of Morbi City A Division Police Station, Morbi, State of Gujarat (Charge Sheet No. 528/2025 pending on the file of Ld. CJM, Morbi, State of Gujarat) on such terms and conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in exercise of the extra-ordinary powers vested with this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
c) that interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) above be granted;
d) that cost of the petition be provided for;
e) that any such other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, be granted.”
2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition was taken up for final hearing. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. The hearing of the matter was concluded on 08.05.2026 and was kept today for orders/pronouncement.
3. Mr Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing with Mr Denish Mavadhiya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is not disputed rather admitted by the investigating officer that the petitioner was apprehended on 25.07.2025 from Gurugram, Haryana but was not produced before the nearest learned Magistrate within 24 hours, let alone seeking transit remand. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was brought by road via Delhi to Gandhinagar CID crime and was thereafter taken to Morbi. Before reaching Gandhinagar, the petitioner was made to stay at the hotel at Ahmedabad. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2025 but on paper was shown arrested on 27.07.2025 at 16:00 hours and the petitio
