2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 113

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, Ashish Shroti, JJ
Anil Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 2 of 2026

An arrest is vitiated if the mandatory constitutional safeguard of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing is entirely ignored. A habeas corpus petition remains maintainable on this limited ground, despite a subsequent order of judicial remand.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22(1), 22(5) - Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 48, 126, 135, 141, 163, 167, 168, 169, 170 - Habeas Corpus - Illegal arrest - Communication of grounds of arrest - Failure to provide grounds of arrest in writing constitutes violation of fundamental rights - Remand order - When grounds of arrest are not furnished, remand order vitiated - Habeas Corpus maintainable on limited ground of illegal arrest. (Paras 20, 28, 48, 73, 80)

(B) Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - Petition challenging remand order is generally not entertained in habeas corpus proceedings - Exceptions exist where remand order is passed mechanically, without jurisdiction, or in cases of non-compliance with mandatory constitutional safeguards - Legality of detention is judged as on the date of hearing. (Paras 16, 21, 25, 30)

(C) Arrest Procedure - Custody versus Formal Arrest - Custody encompasses surveillance and restraint; formal arrest is a subset of custody - Police must communicate grounds of arrest in writing in a language the arrestee understands as soon as possible - Oral communication is insufficient if not followed by written communication at least two hours prior to production before magistrate. (Paras 66, 67, 72, 73, 76)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his arrest was illegal because he was detained prior to the formal registration of the FIR and the mandatory grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing. The State contended that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had been remanded by a judicial officer, and further, that another public interest litigation regarding the same subject matter was pending before a coordinate bench.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the legality of a remand order is typically tested through statutory appeal rather than habeas corpus, a challenge to the initial arrest for violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) remains maintainable. The court found that because the grounds of arrest were never communicated in writing, the fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated, rendering the arrest illegal.

Issues: (i) Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable after a judicial remand order is passed? (ii) Whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing renders an arrest illegal and entitles an arrestee to be released despite a subsequent remand?

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing violates Article 22(1) and Article 21, vitiating the arrest. Even if a remand order has been passed, a court exercising writ jurisdiction must consider whether the initial arrest suffered from such illegality, as a subsequent judicial order cannot validate a fundamental breach of constitutional mandate.

Result: Petition allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to specified conditions, including the execution of personal bonds and an undertaking to maintain peace.