Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Uma Shanker Vyas, Ashok Kumar Jain, JJ
Rohit Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 171/2026
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus
Act Referred
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: S.7(c), S.12, S.13(1)(a), S.15
Indian Penal Code: S.167, S.409, S.420, S.466, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.477A, S.120B
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): S.47, S.48, S.55
Headnote
(B) Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - Challenge to arrest and remand - Where a judicial remand order is passed by a competent court, a writ of habeas corpus challenging the arrest is not maintainable as the accused has statutory remedies available to challenge the remand order.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, son of the detenue, challenged the detention of his father by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), alleging non-compliance with the requirement to inform the grounds of arrest and a failure to follow the procedural mandates set by the Supreme Court. The detenue was arrested on 07.05.2026 and regular judicial remand orders were subsequently passed by the Special Judge.
Findings of Court:
While acknowledging that there was clear non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding the communication of arrest grounds, the Court held that it could not entertain a habeas corpus petition to set aside the detention once the arrestee is in custody pursuant to valid judicial remand orders passed by a competent court. The Court directed that the petitioner should seek appropriate remedies to challenge the remand orders.
Issues: Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable to challenge the legality of an arrest on grounds of non-compliance with Article 22(1) after a judicial remand order has been passed by the competent magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: Though informing the arrestee of the grounds in writing is a mandatory constitutional safeguard, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued if the detenue is currently in judicial custody under a remand order passed by a judicial officer; the legality of the detention must be challenged through regular statutory procedures.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Siddharth Sharma, Himanshu Choudhary
For the Respondents: Rajendra Prasad, Rajesh Choudhary, Aman Kumar, Vinod Kumar Sharma, Neha Goyal, Vijay Yadav, Jitendra Singh Rathore, Tanay Goyal, Manju Dave
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and allegations of illegal detention and non-communication of arrest grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contention regarding the maintainability of habeas corpus against judicial remand orders. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's analysis of constitutional mandates for informing grounds of arrest and limitations on judicial review of remand via habeas corpus. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. final dismissal order based on procedural maintainability while emphasizing police training. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
Order
Per Justice (Ashok Kumar Jain)
1. The instant habeas corpus petition is filed by the petitioner, who is son of detenue Dr. Mahesh Joshi. The petition is primarily filed on the ground that without communicating ground of arrest to the family members and friends of detenue and further violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the detention of Dr. Mahesh Joshi is illegal since 07.05.2026.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ACB has registered FIR No. 245/2024 dated 30th October 2024 under Section 7(c), 12, 13(1)(a), read with Section 13(2) & 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (as amended) Act of 2018 and Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of IPC. Dr. Mahesh Joshi was arrested on 07:45 A.M. on 07.05.2026, on charge of offence under Sections 7(c), 12, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2), 15 of the P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended by Act of 2018) and Sections 167, 468, 471, 420, 120B of IPC.
3. The material on record also indicate that the detenue was produced before learned Special Judge, (PC Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur on 07.05.2026 and was remanded to police custody till 11.05.2026. An application is filed by the counsel for detenue at the time of remand alleging violation of directions in case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana : (2025) 5 SCC 799. The ACB has submitted first reply on 11.05.2026, but afterward again filed second and detailed reply on 14.05.2026. This application was decided by the learned Special Judge, (PC Act Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur on 08.06.2026, resulting in dismissal of application.
4. The instant petition is filed on 19.05.2026 and the reply has already been filed by the State. At this stage, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, we are deciding this petition on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the present petitioner was illegally detained on 7th May 2026 in connection with a report registered by the ACB on 30th October 2024 for offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under the IPC. He also submits that neither on 07-05-2026, soon before the arrest nor after the arrest and production before learned Sessions Judge, either the detenue or family member of the detenue were informed about the ground of arrest. He further submits that at the time of production of detenue before learned Sessions Judge, an application (Annexure-2) was filed to raise objection about non-compliance of direction in case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra). He also submits that without deciding the application submitted by the counsel for detenue, a three-day remand was sanctioned by learned Sessions Judge, which is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He also submitted that neither the grant of ground of arrest were communicated orally nor in writing to detenue or family member of detenue. He further referred the stand of the ACB and submitted that at one point of time, the ACB has claimed that the ground of arrest were explained orally to the family members and later stated that the grounds were communicated to the detenue himself. He also submitted that the ACB has fabricated the document of 6th May 2026 whereby the directions have been gi
