Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 13948
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
SONAM SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPCR No. 124 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil Kumar
For the Respondents: Shaleen Singh Baghel
A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the detenu has been produced before a competent Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody by a valid order, and the writ court will not conduct a roving inquiry into disputed factual allegations like forgery.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged her arrest and detention, alleging violations of Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was contended that the petitioner was detained beyond 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate and that the arrest memo was forged. The court found that the petitioner was produced before the competent Magistrate within the statutory period and a valid remand order was in place. The primary issue was whether the detention was illegal and if a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable. The court reasoned that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only when detention is ex facie illegal; once a person is remanded to judicial custody by a valid judicial order, the detention is not illegal unless the order lacks jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that it cannot conduct a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact, such as the forgery of signatures, under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The same, being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of illegal detention and procedural violations during arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's refusal to conduct roving inquiries into factual disputes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. habeas corpus is not maintainable after valid judicial remand. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. dismissal of petition with liberty to seek alternative remedies. (Para 12 , 13) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. By filing of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
“10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.
10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge Interim relief to the petitioner.
10.3) That, this Hon'ble court may Kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ containing release order of petitioner and declare the arrest as illegal detention.
10.4) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to awards compensation to the petitioner.
10.5) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly take action against the respondent authorities in the interest of justice.
10.6) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the police authorities of City Kotwali Police Station is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in complete disregard of the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards guaranteed to every citizen. He submits that the petitioner was picked up from her residence on 12.02.2026 between 2:00 to 3:00 PM without being informed of the grounds of arrest, thereby directly infringing the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the constitutional protection under Article 22(2), which obligates the police authorities to produce an arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, has been flagrantly violated. The continued detention of the petitioner beyond the prescribed period without being produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class amounts to illegal and unconstitutional custody, rendering the entire arrest procedure void ab initio.
4. It is further submitted that Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly mandates that no police officer shall detain a person arrested without warrant for a period longer than 24 hours in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The respondents, in defiance of this statutory safeguard, have illegally confined the petitioner, thus making the detention patently unlawful. He submits that the alleged preparation of an arrest memo bearing forged signatures of the petitioner’s brother-in-law is a serious act of fabrication of official record. Such conduct not only vitiates the procedural compliance sought to be projected by the police authorities but also prima facie attracts penal consequences under the criminal law for forgery and fabrication of public document. The affidavit of the brother-in-law (Annexure P/1) categorically denies execution of any such arrest memo and exposes the mala fide intention of the concerned police officials. It is also contended that despite an objection/application having been moved before the learned JMFC on 13.02.2026 (Annexure P/2), specifically raising the issue of non-production within the mandatory period of 24 hours, the same was dismissed without granting effective relief. This has left the petitioner remediless at the subordinate level, thereby necessitating intervention of this Court.
5. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of respondent No.3 is violative of the principles of natural justice, p
