Detention of a person in connection with a registered FIR, even if the formal arrest is recorded shortly after the initial detention, does not constitute illegal detention warranting a writ of Habeas Corpus.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL)

1. The prayer in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to get release the detenue – Sawan S/o Jagdish, cousin of the petitioner from the illegal custody of respondent No.4.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the detenue, Sawan, was illegally picked up on 28.02.2026 and has been detained with respect to a dispute between Sachin and Deepanshu in which the petitioner was acting as a mediator. Now his arrest has been erroneously shown in FIR No.303 dated 20.06.2025 on the basis of another complaint dated 28.02.2026 though the same pertains to the same FIR. Therefore, appropriate action be taken against the police authorities.

3. The learned counsel for the State has filed a status report dated 04.03.2026 by way of an affidavit, which is taken on record. While referring to the same, he contends that the detenue (Sawan) was detained on 28.02.2026 and was subsequently arrested in FIR No.303 dated 20.06.2025. Therefore, his detention is not illegal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. On 28.02.2026, the following order was passed:-

“Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to get released the detenue, namely, Sawan son of Jagdish, cousin of the petitioner, from the illegal custody of respondent No.4.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the cousin of the detenue, namely, Sawan and they are residing in the same village. He submits that today i.e. 28.02.2026, when the detenue went to the District Courts at Karnal to resolve some dispute, then he has been illegally detained by respondent No.4 without any reason, complaint or any FIR against him. He, thus, prays that a Warrant Officer be appointed to get released the detenue from the illegal detention of the respondent No.4.

Notice of motion, for 05.03.2026.

The office is directed to appoint a Warrant Officer with a roving writ, who shall visit the places mentioned in the petition and any other place(s) pointed out by the petitioner and get the detenue released forthwith, if he is found in illegal custody. The expenses of the Warrant Officer shall be borne by the petitioner as per norms.

Warrant Officer to submit the report on or before the date fixed.”

6. In deference to the afore-mentioned order, Tarlochan Singh was appointed as a Warrant Officer. He has submitted his reply dated 03.03.2026, which is taken on record. A perusal of the same would reveal that when the Warrant Officer along with the petitioner and one Anil had gone to the Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, the detenue (Sawan) was found detained by the investigating agency. However, his arrest in FIR No.303 dated 20.06.2025 has been shown later that night. Certain allegations have been levelled against the Investigating Officer – SI, Rajesh Kumar, which may not be germane to the controversy at hand. The report would also reveal that no monetary transaction has taken place between Sawan and Deepanshu.

7. In view of the fact that the detenue (Sawan) was detained and subsequently shown to have been arrested with respect to the investigation in FIR No.303 dated 2025, it cannot be stated that he had been illegally detained.

8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

9. All the pending miscel