A petition for habeas corpus challenging an initial order of remand is not maintainable once a competent court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet and the criminal trial has commenced. Subsequent judicial orders for custody, such as committal or specific trial remands, supersede the initial arrest order.

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth, J.

1. Heard Sri Anupam Verma and Sri Shrawan Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A.-Ist for the State and perused the pleadings brought on record of the writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that an F.I.R bearing No. 20/2024, U/s 498A, 323, 304B, 302, 201, 120B IPC & 4 DV Act, Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, was registered. Petitioner was arrested in connection with No. 20/2024 U/s 498A, 323, 304B, 302, 201, 120B IPC & 4 DV Act Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur. While making arrest, grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing nor were communicated to his family members, friends or to any person authorized by him. Such acts of arresting officer were, as per the petitioner, directly in the teeth of law laid down in the matter of Prabir Purkayastha Versus State (Nct Of Delhi) LAWS(SC)-2024-5- 46, Pankaj Bansal. Union of India LAWS(SC-2023-10-3, Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana LAWS(SC)-2025-2-20 & Ashish Kakkar v U.T Chandigarh ; Criminal Appeal No. 1518 of 2025 (@ SLP |Crl] No. 1662 of 2025 as well as Judgement & Order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 934 of 2025 Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana v State of UP & Ors & Writ Petition No. 905 of 2025 Sachin Soni @ Aa:su (@ Sachin Kumar Soni v State of UP & Ors.

3. Learned Remand Magistrate without protecting the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and without ensuring compliance of Section 50 & 50A of B.N.S.S remanded petitioner to judicial custody and he is in jail since then.

4. This Hon'ble Court in CRLP No. 905 of 2025 as well as CRLP No. 934 of 2025 has settled the controversy and gave directions to State of UP for strict compliance of the constitutional as well as statutory mandate. Not only above, the directions were also given to remand magistrate as per law laid down in the matter of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra [2012] 8 S.C.R. 295. Application was moved before concerned trial court for not extending the remand as all the remands will vitiate, even if given, but no heed has been paid and the application is pending.

5. Hence, it has been prayed that the arrest of the petitioner may be declared illegal and he may be set to liberty in view of the number of judgments passed in the cases noted above.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of state-respondents stating therein that the present habeas corpus petition is not maintainable as the corpus is not in illegal detention. Petitioner is named accused in F.I.R of the present case which was registered as Case Crime No. 0020/24, under sections- 498A, 323, 304B, 302, 120-B I.P.C and section 4 D.P. Act, at police station- Kotwali, District- Lalitpur. Allegations against the petitioner is that petitioner had murdered/committed dowry death of his own wife and also committed murder o