Gujarat High Court
Sagar Ambaram Fultaria Thro. Ambaram ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 May, 2026
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.3662 of
2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SAGAR AMBARAM FULTARIA THRO. AMBARAM THOBHANBHAI
FULTARIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GHANSHYAM UPADHYAY FOR MR DENISH V MAVADHIYA(9207) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 21/05/2026
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to release the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with the FIR No. 11189003250401/2025 lodged with Morbi City, A Division Police Station, Morbi for the offences punishable under Page 1 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 349, 3(5), 61, 229(1), 235 and 236 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the BNS"). For ease of reference, the prayers prayed for by the petitioner are reproduced hereinbelow:
"a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus thereby directing the Respondents to release the Petitioner forthwith from illegal arrest and detention in connection with the FIR No. 11189003250401/2025 of Morbi City A Division Police Station, Morbi, State of Gujarat (Charge Sheet No. 528/2025 pending on the file of Ld. CJM, Morbi, State of Gujarat), in exercise of the extra-ordinary powers vested with this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
b) that pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct release of the Petitioner on bail forthwith in connection with the FIR No. 11189003250401/2025 of Morbi City A Division Police Station, Morbi, State of Gujarat (Charge Sheet No. 528/2025 pending on the file of Ld. CJM, Morbi, State of Gujarat) on such terms and conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in exercise of the extra-ordinary powers vested with this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
c) that interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause
(a) and (b) above be granted;
d) that cost of the petition be provided for;
e) that any such other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, be granted."
2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition was taken up for final hearing. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. The hearing of the matter was concluded on 08.05.2026 and was kept today for orders/pronouncement.
Page 2 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined
3. Mr Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing with Mr Denish Mavadhiya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is not disputed rather admitted by the investigating officer that the petitioner was apprehended on 25.07.2025 from Gurugram, Haryana but was not produced before the nearest learned Magistrate within 24 hours, let alone seeking transit remand. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was brought by road via Delhi to Gandhinagar CID crime and was thereafter taken to Morbi. Before reaching Gandhinagar, the petitioner was made to stay at the hotel at Ahmedabad. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2025 but on paper was shown arrested on 27.07.2025 at 16:00 hours and the petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi on 28.07.2025 at 3:30 p.m. Furthermore, it is admitted that the "grounds of arrest" were not communicated to the petitioner, either orally or in writing. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is against the constitutional mandate and illegal since inception.
3.1 It is next submitted that the stand taken by the respondents, they having visited Gurugram, Haryana for preliminary inquiry and the petitioner having willingly joined the officers and that it was only after completing the formal inquiry that the arrest was made and hence it cannot be said that the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2025, is incorrect. It is further submitted that in the case on hand, a senior investigating officer in the press-conference has made it clear about the arrest of the petitioner from Gurugram, and Page 3 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined therefore, it would be incorrect on the part of the prosecution to say that the petitioner has voluntarily accompanied the officers. The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, before the learned Sessions Court, Morbi and subsequently before this Hon'ble Court, was vehemently contested by the respondents by filing affidavits. Neither the contention that the Investigating Authority had gone to Gurugram for conducting the preliminary inquiry, nor that the petitioner was not arrested and had come on his own, can be accepted.
3.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1484 for the proposition that the police is obligated to secure the transit remand for taking the arrestee from one place to another in their own custody, for the purpose of producing him before the concerned Magistrate who has the jurisdiction to try/commit the case. The idea behind such remand is to enable the police to shift the person in custody from the place of arrest to the place where the matter can be investigated and tried. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 for the proposition that mere passing of an order of remand would not be sufficient in itself to validate the arrest if the arrest is not in conformity with the requirement of law. Specific reliance is placed on paragraphs 11, 14 to 17, 19 to 23. It is therefore submitted that if the arrest is itself illegal, the order of remand passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate would Page 4 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined not validate the arrest. Reliance is placed on the said judgment also for the proposition that clause (1) Article 22 of the Constitution of India provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest and that it being a fundamental right, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It is submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the proposition that how and when the grounds of arrest are to be served upon the arrestee. Reference is made of paragraphs 34,35,38,42,43 and 45.
3.3 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Vishal Manohar Mandrekar vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine TS 69. The issue was regarding non- production of the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours. Ancillary contention raised was exclusion of time taken for journey from the place of arrest till the production before the Magistrate. It is held and observed that personal liberty is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court, observed that the petitioner therein was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours without obtaining any transit warrant and the arrest was held to be in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
3.4 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2025) Page 5 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined 5 SCC 799. It is held and observed that the grounds of arrest to the person arrested should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same. In other words, the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands. Besides, the idea behind informing the grounds of arrest, is to give an opportunity to the arrestee to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended. If the grounds of the arrest are not communicated to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he may not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult an advocate. The Apex Court has also stated that rejection of bail application and filing of charge- sheet is immaterial in matters of illegal arrest. For similar proposition, reliance is placed on paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416. Attention is also invited to the judgment in the case of Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency reported in (2022) 13 SCC 542 and by placing specific reliance on paragraphs 73 onwards, it is submitted that challenge to the order of remand would have invited the risk of non-maintainability of the writ of Habeas Corpus, considering the fact in paragraph 80 of the judgment the Apex Court has carved out the situations where the Habeas Corpus petition would be maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India & Anr. of the Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 001700 of 2026 and Anr.
3.5 It is submitted that so far as arrest is concerned, it is Page 6 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined well settled that the moment an individual's movement is restricted and is completely in the charge of Investigating Authority, then the arrest is complete at that very moment and not when on paper the formal arrest is shown. The Investigating Authority is duty bound to produce the arrestee before the nearest learned Magistrate and has to seek transit remand, and in the absence thereof, the arrest would be illegal. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not arrested is fallacious.
3.6 By inviting the attention of this Court to the application of the respondents dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure C), it is submitted that in the first place it was not supplied to the petitioner. Besides, the said application, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to be providing the grounds of arrest, asmuch as, it only makes a reference of reasons for arrest and not the grounds. The grounds of arrest has to be by way of an independent document and cannot be inferred from any other document. It is submitted that the law requires that the arrestee should be informed immediately of the grounds of arrest and it is only in exceptional cases and, in any case, before two hours of the accused being produced before the Court and in the language known to the accused. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 to contend that there is a significant difference in the phrase "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest". It has been held and observed that the "reasons for arrest" as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters preventing the accused person Page 7 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined from committing any further offence etc. whereas the "grounds of arrest" would be required to contain all details in hand of the investigating officer, necessitating the arrest of the accused. The Apex Court has pointed out that the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to accused all basic facts on which he is being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. The Apex Court has further held that the grounds of arrest are not only to be informed to the arrestee but also to his relative or friend. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Ashrafbhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online Bom 2972 for similar proposition.
3.7 It is submitted that in a writ petition seeking Habeas Corpus, only one line is to be averred by the petitioner that the grounds of arrest have not been supplied. The burden then, is on the investigating officer to substantiate that the constitutional and statutory mandate has been complied with. It is further submitted that in the captioned petition composite prayer has been made of release of the petitioner from illegal arrest and detention and hence, it is incorrect to suggest on the part of the respondents that the petitioner has not challenged the order of remand. It is next submitted that the case of the respondents is that even if initial detention is illegal; what is to be seen is the position prevailing during the hearing of the petition and if the arrest by that time has become legal, by virtue of an order of remand, then in that case, writ petition seeking Habeas Corpus is not maintainable;
Page 8 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined such contention is misplaced inasmuch as, the law has traveled far beyond. In recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir R. Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356, it is held that non-compliance would result in breach of the constitutional and statutory safeguards as provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest and remand illegal and person will be entitled to be set free. Therefore, when initial arrest is itself illegal and in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, then subsequent order of remand would not validate the initial illegality. It is next submitted that despite passing of the remand order or the orders refusing the bail by the courts or the charge-sheet being filed and Magistrate taking cognizance, the writ petition under Habeas Corpus is maintainable.
3.8 It is further submitted that the stand taken of no necessity to take the transit remand and as per the provision of section 58 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"), the travel time has to be excluded from the 24 hour period stipulated therein, is also an incorrect stand. It is further submitted that so far as the exclusion of time of 24 hours is concerned, it is held by the Apex Court and the various High Courts, that when the offender is arrested from another State from the State where the FIR is registered; in that case transit remand is must. It is submitted that when the petitioner was apprehended from Gurugram the option available to the Investigating Officer was to have produced him before the nearest learned Magistrate Page 9 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined and prayed for a transit remand; however, in the case on hand, firstly, there was no transit remand taken and secondly, the petitioner, was not produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Manoj vs. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 715. It is submitted that the court was dealing with the case in connection with section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. That the petitioner therein was arrested and not produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours and hence, the writ petition seeking Habeas Corpus, was allowed. The Apex Court noted that it is a constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It has been further held and observed that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. In continuation and in support of such submission further reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of (i) Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240; and
(ii) Hemang Jadavji Shah vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2145 (paragraphs 3,4(d),(f), (g), 6,7,11 to 16,18,21,22,23,26,27 and 30).
3.9 It is submitted that even while entertaining the writ petition seeking Habeas Corpus this Court is empowered to grant bail and in support of such submission reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of Bihar vs. Rambalak Singh & Ors reported in 1966 SCC OnLine SC 94; AIR 1966 Page 10 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined SC 1441. It is submitted that the issue before the Apex Court was "whether while entertaining a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on behalf of a detenue who has been detained under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, the High Court has jurisdiction to release the detenue on bail pending the final disposal of the Habeas Corpus petition." The issue, was answered in affirmative by observing that in dealing with Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the orders of detention passed under Rule 30, the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail. It is next submitted that the grounds of arrest, has to be separately provided and it would not be sufficient even if it is mentioned in the arrest memo or in the application seeking remand. It is next submitted that criminal antecedents would be relevant while considering the bail application but not in the writ petition seeking Habeas Corpus.
4. On the other hand, Mr Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality committed on the part of the Investigating Authority and the arrest is in accordance with law. The captioned writ petition seeking writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable rather may not be entertained inasmuch as, on 28.07.2025, order has been passed granting remand. Moreover, the application seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court, Morbi vide passing a detailed order dated 03.04.2025 so also by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025; followed by filing of the charge-sheet on 25.09.2025. It is next Page 11 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined submitted that the petitioner subsequent thereto has filed an application seeking regular bail which also came to be rejected by the Sessions Court, Morbi on 18.10.2025. The said order is accepted and the petitioner has not approached the higher forum and instead has filed the captioned writ petition seeking writ of Habeas Corpus, which remedy in view of the above development is not available.
4.1 It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the averments made in the remand application, would suggest that it complies with the requirements under Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with section 47 of the BNSS. It is submitted that the first paragraph discloses the offence followed by mentioning of the grounds and that is how, the submissions were made and recorded of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that learned advocate for the petitioner was supplied with the remand application otherwise he would not have made submissions dealing with the merits and the grounds of the arrest. The submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner in vernacular is recorded taking note of the reasons contained in the remand application. Therefore, the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate had complete knowledge as to why the petitioner was arrested.
4.2 It is further submitted that one of the aspects enumerated in Article 22 of the Constitution of India is that the arrestee should be aware of as to why he is arrested. Simply put, the whole purpose and object of providing grounds of arrest is that the arrestee should know for what Page 12 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined reasons and in what context, arrest is being made so that the arrestee can contest his arrest at the stage of remand/ bail, or in a writ of Habeas Corpus. It is submitted that there is sufficient compliance of the constitutional mandate inasmuch as, what has been provided to the petitioner are the grounds of arrest, incorporating sufficient details, over and above the material already furnished. Therefore, the case on hand is not one of those cases where the accused or his advocate were unaware of the reasons. The compliance of the constitutional mandate is clear considering the fact that the arrestee had sufficient opportunity to oppose his remand application on merits. The contention of the petitioner that the grounds of arrest are not furnished is far from truth and does not deserve to be accepted.
4.3 It is next submitted that the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has put his signature in the remand order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which suggests that why the petitioner has been arrested. Essentially it is to be established before Court of law that there is sufficient compliance and not technically identified compliance. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court can very well examine the aspect and determine whether the compliance is in its true spirit or not. It is submitted that section 47 of the BNSS requires that the person arrested to be informed about full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. It is submitted that for the offences punishable under PML Act, Customs Act, GST Act; no such window is open and it strictly requires providing Page 13 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined grounds of arrest. The idea behind is to see that the arrestee is not kept in dark or is completely unaware about the offences alleged to have been committed. In the instant case, the remand application and the remand order clearly establishes that the petitioner and the learned advocate for the petitioner had sufficient knowledge about the grounds of arrest.
4.4 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75398. While referring to the provision of clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India it has been held and observed that requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is mandatory. It has been further observed that information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested persons in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguards is achieved.
4.5 It is submitted that the provision of clause (1) of Article 22 is in two parts; first, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest, as soon as may be, and second, he shall not be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. It is submitted that the remand application was provided and the arrestee was represented by the Advocate and had opposed the remand application which Page 14 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined suggests that the arrestee and the advocate were aware about the grounds of arrest. Had there been any grievance on the part of the arrestee of having not received the grounds of arrest, objection ought to have been raised about the insufficiency or non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest, but has not been raised.
4.6 While referring to the proforma of warrant (form 3) as provided under section 72 of BNSS, it is submitted that the details as stipulated in a warrant if are furnished by Investigating Authority with grounds or in any form, then the grounds of arrest can be said to have been communicated. It is submitted that in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) it has been held as to in case of warrant, why the grounds of arrest are not required to be supplied. It is submitted that if from the record it is established that the accused was aware of the grounds of arrest then, there is sufficient compliance. In the proceedings under the PML Act or GST Act, there is no FIR registered and hence, the arrestee would not be aware of the ground unlike the case on hand inasmuch as, there is an FIR registered against the arrestee and the arrestee was very well aware about the grounds and everything was within his knowledge. There is nothing of which the petitioner was not aware. Knowledge was very much there and hence, the requisite conditions stand satisfied and the arrest cannot be said to be in breach or violation of the constitutional mandate.
4.7 While adverting to the issue as to whether the petitioner was arrested in Gurugram or not, it is submitted that the Page 15 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined petitioner and his friend had voluntarily agreed to cooperate with the proceedings and that is how both traveled together from Gurugram to Gandhingar via Delhi only for the purpose of preliminary inquiry. It is submitted that after completing the preliminary inquiry, since nothing was found against the friend, he was allowed to go; however, the Investigating Authority after conducting preliminary inquiry found the involvement of the petitioner and hence, thought it fit to arrest him. Therefore, during the course of the preliminary inquiry, no steps were taken and only upon conclusion when there was incriminating material found, the officers arrested the petitioner. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that travel time from Gurugram to Gandhinagar is more than 24 hours and the petitioner was arrested on 27.07.2025 at 16:00 hrs. It is submitted that time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the learned Magistrate's court, is to be excluded for computing the 24 hours permitted to the police to keep an accused in their custody prior to the learned Magistrate's authorization. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Enforcement Directorate vs. Kapil Wadhwan & Anr reported in (2024) 7 SCC 147. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (supra) to content that clause (2) of Article 22 directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of learned Magistrate.
Page 16 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined 4.8 While concluding it is submitted that clause (1) of Article 22, requires compliance, by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts, constituting the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. In the case on hand, the respondents have been able to satisfy that the grounds of arrest were very much within the knowledge of the arrestee and hence, the objection raised is hyper-technical. Moreover, the order of remand speaks for itself, as the learned Advocate has raised all the available contentions opposing the application which would prove that the arrestee had sufficient knowledge of the grounds of arrest and the opportunity was availed of by him and his lawyer.
5. Mr Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned Advocate for the petitioner in rejoinder drew the attention of this Court to page 22 of the petition. It is contended that there lies a fallacy in the argument that the grounds were supplied inasmuch as, the application was not given to the arrestee but the same, is addressed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Two applications were filed; one for taking the petitioner into judicial custody and another the remand application. The two documents, do not remotely suggest that the petitioner was furnished the grounds of arrest. Bare perusal of the averments would suggest and cannot be construed to be grounds of arrest and were neither given to the arrestee or his family members or relative. It is submitted that in the remand application, there is no endorsement of the arrestee or his lawyer of its receipt. In the absence of any endorsement or document produced by the respondents suggesting that it Page 17 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined has been served upon the petitioner; no inference can be drawn from the language of the remand order. Rather the law is settled that in any case the grounds of arrest has to be supplied in writing in the language known to the arrestee, atleast two hours before producing the arrestee before the learned Magistrate.
5.1 It is next submitted that the affidavit-in-reply also does not clearly state as to when and how the copy of the remand application was served upon the arrestee. As is discernible from the record, the arrestee had applied for the certified copy of the remand application only in the month of December, 2025. Therefore, the contention that the learned Advocate for the petitioner had made submission and he had knowledge, is misplaced. It is submitted that the moment a grievance is raised that the grounds of arrest are not supplied, the onus shifts on the investigating agency to satisfy that there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the constitutional mandate. Besides, registration of the FIR by itself, is not a sufficient compliance and it has to be proved that the grounds were furnished. Reference of PML Act, GST Act and absence of filing of FIR is also misplaced considering the fact that in the case of Mihir Shah vs. State of Maharashta (supra), the Apex Court has clearly held that constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the Indian Penal Code (now BNS, 2023).
Page 18 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined 5.2 It is submitted that the contention that the petitioner and one Nitesh Maheshbhai Goswami were brought for the purposes of preliminary inquiry and after recording statement, the petitioner was arrested and the other person was allowed to go back, is also not correct. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not taken into custody at 10:00 p.m. on 25.07.2025 from Gurugram, Haryana. The custody from 10:00 p.m. on 25.07.2025 till 16:00 hrs on 27.07.2025 is stated as not an arrest; however, it is the specific case of the petitioner that his movement was restricted by the Investigating Authority and right from that moment, arrest is said to be made. Formal arrest as mentioned in the paper work is immaterial. It is submitted that Nitesh Maheshbhai Goswami, the friend of the petitioner had accompanied as there was a fear that the petitioner would be subjected to torture. Further in case of arrest of a person from a State where the offence is not registered, the Investigating Authority is required to seek transit remand of the arrestee as per the judgment in the Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka (supra). It is urged that as the arrest is illegal since inception on both the grounds, the petition deserves to be allowed and petitioner may be directed to be released forthwith.
6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the documents on record, including the compilations, three in number containing numerous judgments cited and made available on the record.
Page 19 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined
7. Tersely stated are the facts:
8. The captioned petition seeking writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondents to release the petitioner in connection with the FIR No. 11189003250401/2025 dated 15.03.2025 lodged with 'A' Division Morbi City Police Station, for the offences punishable under sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 349, 3(5), 61, 229(1), 235 and 236 of the BNS. As per the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy in connivance with another accused named in the FIR so as to grab the valuable land bearing survey no. 602 admeasuring 15783 sq. mtrs. situated at village Vajepur, by creating forged documents namely affidavits, heirship, death-certificates etc. The petitioner apprehending his arrest had preferred anticipatory bail applications before the Court of Sessions Judge, Morbi as well as before this Court by preferring Criminal Miscellaneous Application (for Anticipatory Bail) no.8148 of 2025, and both the applications were rejected vide detailed order dated 03.04.2025 and vide CAV judgment dated 01.07.2025, respectively.
9. Discernibly, the petitioner was apprehended on 25.07.2025 at about 10 p.m. by the CID Crime, Gandhinagar from Gurugram, Haryana and was brought along with his friend Niteshbhai Maheshbhai Goswami to Ahmedabad where the petitioner and the police officers stayed at the hotel and was thereafter taken to Gandhinagar, CID Crime. The petitioner was shown to be arrested on 27.07.2025 at 16:00 hours and thereafter, was produced before the learned Chief Page 20 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined Judicial Magistrate, Morbi on 28.07.2025 at 3:30 p.m. Applications, both dated 28.07.2025, were filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, praying for taking the petitioner in Court's custody and remand of the petitioner respectively. As per the endorsement on the application dated 28.07.2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded that the petitioner was produced at 3:30 p.m. and upon being asked the petitioner has stated that he has no complaint against the police officers. The petitioner was taken in judicial custody by passing an order dated 28.07.2025. By order of the even date, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi ordered police custody remand of the petitioner till 01.08.2025 upto 11:00 a.m. Endorsement has been put by the petitioner as well as by the learned Advocate representing the petitioner about the contents of the order having been explained to them. It is clear from the record that the said orders have been accepted by the petitioner and not challenged before any higher forum. After the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed on 25.09.2025. The petitioner, had preferred an application seeking regular bail, which came to be rejected vide order date 18.10.2025. It may be noted that on 16.12.2025, application was preferred by and on behalf of the petitioner seeking certified/ simple copy of the remand application; production papers, etc.
10. Perceptibly, the petitioner almost after a period of nine months has approached this Court seeking writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release as according to the petitioner, Page 21 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined his arrest is illegal. Genesis of such prayers is the grounds, inter alia, non-production of the petitioner before the nearest learned Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours; absence of transit remand and non-supply of grounds of arrest. When the issue concerns the personal liberty of a person, the delay, is to be considered keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (supra). Contention was raised by the respondent therein that the appellant being remanded to custody, the custody is pursuant to the order taking cognizance of the charge-sheet. The Apex Court, noted that accepting such contention would amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution and further observed that once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional, due to violation of clause (1) of Article 22 the arrest itself is vitiated. Relevant paragraph 21 reads thus:
"21. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.
Therefore, filing of a charge-sheet and passing of order of cognizance would not validate an arrest which, is per se unconstitutional being violative of Articles 21 and clause (1) of Page 22 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
11. In the case on hand, remand order was passed in the month of July, 2025 followed by filing of the charge-sheet on 25.09.2025 before the trial Court; further followed by rejection of the regular bail application by the court concerned vide order dated 18.10.2025. The above observations made by the Apex Court would directly apply to the facts of the case inasmuch as, if this Court were to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner that the arrest is not as per the procedure established by law, then taking place of subsequent events or passing of the orders would not validate the arrest which is illegal or unconstitutional. Therefore, the issues that arise for determination of this Court are; (i) whether the petitioner's arrest was in accordance with the procedure established by law and in the terms of the safeguards provided to a person of his personal liberty; and
(ii) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, can it be said that the "grounds of arrest" either orally or in writing were provided to the petitioner or his friend or family in the known language.
12. Contention is raised by the State that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner may not be applicable to the facts of the case for, the judgments were dealing with different statutes. Therefore, it would be necessary, at the outset, to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) in paragraph 39:
Page 23 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined "39. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India shows that the intent of the constitution makers while incorporating the provisions was not to create any exceptional circumstances, instead it reads as "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest....", it casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22 (1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023)."
13. The Apex Court has made it explicitly clear that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute- specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and would apply to all the offences including those under the Penal Code, 1860 (now BNS, 2023). Having said so, for deciding the above referred issues, and before adverting to the judgments and the celebrated principles laid down by the Apex Court, it would be apt to refer to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and the same are set out hereinbelow for ready reference:
21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for Page 24 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
(2)Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.
(3)Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply--
(a)to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or
(b)to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.
(4)No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless--(a)an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b)such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5)When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
(6)Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.
(7)Parliament may by law prescribe--(a)the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4);Page 25 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined
(b)the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and
(c)the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4)."
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the cherished fundamental right provides protection of life and personal liberty of a person. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Furthermore, clause (1) of Article 22, is in two parts enumerating two requirements namely that the arrested person, at the earliest, be provided with the grounds of arrest coupled with a further opportunity of consulting a legal practitioner of his choice and to be defended by him. The underlying purpose is to provide an opportunity to the arrestee, to make him understand the alleged accusation against him and also further opportunity to him to defend or challenge the same on the permissible grounds through a legal practitioner. Clause (2) of Article 22 provides that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest learned Magistrate within a period of 24 hours after excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of learned Magistrate.
14. For the sake of completeness and in continuation of the above referred provisions, the relevant provisions of the BNSS, are also worth referring to.
"47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.
(1)Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full Page 26 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest (2)Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.
58. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty- four hours.
No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 187, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court, whether having jurisdiction or not.
187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.
(1)Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 58, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter specified relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2)The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, irrespective of whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, after taking into consideration whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled, authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be, as provided in sub-section (3), and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.
(3)The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding-(i) ninety days, Page 27 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter.
(4)No Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the audio-video electronic means.
(5)No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.Explanation I.-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in sub-section (3), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.
Explanation II.-If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under sub-section (4), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the audio-video electronic means, as the case may be:Provided that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution:
Provided further that no person shall be detained otherwise than in police station under police custody or in prison under judicial custody or a place declared as prison by the Central Government or the State Government.
(6)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) to sub-section (5), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter specified relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the Page 28 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order;
and, where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section, shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in sub-section (3):
Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.
(7)A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.
(8)Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(9)If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.
(10)Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made under sub-section (9), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (9) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify."
15. In connection with the above cherished fundamental rights, and the relevant applicable provisions, the petitioner has raised the contention that although on paper the arrest is shown on 27.07.2025 at 4:00 p.m., the movement of the petitioner was restricted since 25.07.2025 at Page 29 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined 10:00 p.m. It is also argued that as the movement of the petitioner was restricted since 25.07.2025, the investigating officer ought to have prayed for transit remand and having failed to do so and non-production of the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours, has rendered the arrest of the petitioner illegal and the petitioner deserves to be set free. Besides, the petitioner has challenged his arrest on the premise that the "grounds of arrest" were neither provided to the petitioner nor to his family members or friends, either orally or in writing and in the language known to them. Hence, the arrest of the petitioner is against the established procedure of law and in violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 read with clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India as well as sections 50, 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding sections 47, 58 and 187 of the BNSS).
16. Adverting to the issue that the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2025 and only with a view to curing the illegality the custody from 25.07.2025 to 27.07.2025 is termed as a voluntary accompaniment for preliminary inquiry, notably FIR was registered on 15.03.2025 for the offences punishable under sections 3(5), 336(2) and (3), 338, 339, 340(2) of the BNS with the 'A' Division Morbi City Police Station and the petitioner is arraigned as an accused no. 2. The application seeking anticipatory bail was preferred by the petitioner which was opposed by the State alleging that the applicant is an accused and in connivance with others, has Page 30 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined hatched a conspiracy and committed a serious offence; clearly claiming that for the purpose of interrogation, custody of the petitioner is necessary. Similarly, anticipatory bail application filed before this Court was opposed alleging that investigation is in the process and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessitated. The stand taken by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court opposing the anticipatory bail of the applicant and recorded in paragraph 10 of the CAV Judgment dated 01.07.2025 is set out hereinbelow for ready reference:
"10. Learned APP Mr. Sharma further submits that in fact co-accused Shantaben is 70 years illiterate lady and could not be able to authorise the document by signing it. He further submits that bank account of the said co-accused has been opened and operated by the present applicant and said fact is also verified from the statement of the Bank Manager. He further submits that the co-accused did not receive a single penny from the said transaction and said fact is also found out from certain transactions took place in the account of the applicant and the co-accused. He has produced a chart and submitted that the entire money had been routed through different accounts. He further submits that total amount of Rs.94,50,000/- had come in to the account of the present applicant by rotating it through the accounts of A. J. Enterprise, R. C. Enterprise and West Cost Enterprise. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.83,70,000/- had been transferred in the account of the co-accused by the present applicant and on the strength of the said entries made in the bank statement, applicant has executed registered sale deed in his favour. Those entries are mentioned in the sale deed. He further submits that thereafter from the account of the co-accused, the said amount had firstly gone into the account of Meet Enterprise of the ownership of Mr. Jagir Kiritkumar Khant and from there the amount had gone into the account of Mr. Harshad Bhalodiya and Yash Vaghariya and those persons have paid the said amount in cash to the applicant. Learned APP Mr. Sharma submits that the aforesaid evidence/material clearly goes on to show how the money has been routed through various accounts and once again returned to the applicant. He further submits that the investigating officer has also recorded the statements of all those persons (various accountant holders) and they have very categorically stated that at the instance of the present Page 31 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined applicant they had acted in a particular manner and for the purpose of acting in such a manner and doing that work, they obtained certain amount as a commission from the applicant. The aforesaid documents and materials available on record crystallized the case of the prosecution that a well designed plan has been organized by the present applicant with a sole intent to usurp valuable property of the gullible persons. He further submits that the Bank Account of the co- accused was also opened and operated by the applicant and the said fact is also found out from the statement of the Bank Officer. He further submits that the investigation is still going on and with a view to get details of the involvement of other accused persons in the commission of crime, custodial interrogation of the applicant is badly needed. He submits that thus considering the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, this is a fit case wherein the Court may not have to exercise discretionary powers by enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail. "
As can be seen, it was argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this court that as per the statements recorded by the investigating officers of all the persons concerned, they have categorically stated that at the instance of the applicant i.e. the petitioner herein, they had acted in a particular manner and for which, they have received certain amount as a commission. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also further argued that the evidence and/or material clearly goes to show how the money has been routed through various accounts and that the documents and materials available on record supports the case of the investigating officers that a well designed plan has been structured by the applicant with a sole intent to usurp valuable property of the gullible person. Having taken the aforesaid stand, it is difficult to fathom the nature of the subsequent preliminary inquiry to be carried out by the investigating officers inasmuch as, the evidence, the material was available and on the top of it the petitioner was arraigned Page 32 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined as an accused in the FIR lodged in the month of March, 2025. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit that the preliminary inquiry was yet to be conducted and only upon getting some clue that the petitioner could have been arrested but was not arrested on 25.07.2025, cannot be accepted. Pertinently, the investigating officers visited Gurugram, and took the control of the petitioner and brought him to Ahmedabad via Delhi and thereafter to Gandhinagar. Though it is claimed that it was only for the limited purpose of preliminary inquiry, had it been a part of the preliminary inquiry, there ought to have been a semblance of inquiry; however, there is none except, recording of the statement of the Niteshbhai Maheshbhai Goswami on 25.07.2025 but, not of the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly taken a stand that the petitioner was taken into custody and was in complete control of the investigating officer resulting into restricting the movement of the petitioner. The said contention, has been dealt with by the respondents by simply stating in paragraph 5 of the reply that:
"5. In response to the primary contention raised in the petition as mentioned hereinabove, it is submitted that the petitioner was not arrested on 25.07.2025, from Gurugram Haryana, in fact, the petitioner and his friend Nitesh Maheshbhai had voluntarily agreed to cooperate with the proceedings and therefore, they were brought from Gurugram Haryana to Gandhinagar, Gujarat via Delhi only for the purpose of preliminary inquiry. In fact to dislodge the contention raised by the petitioner that he 46 was arrested on 25.07.2025, it is submitted before the Hon'ble Court the said contention stands nullified by the fact that Nitesh Maheshbhai who had accompanied the present petitioner was also brought, however, after preliminary inquiry he was permitted to go therefore, when preliminary inquiry is being carried out and the officer does not come to a conclusion of arrest therefore, there was no reason at the relevant point of time on 25.07.2025, to arrest the petitioner. It is further submitted that even otherwise, from Page 33 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined Gurugram Haryana to Gandhinagar the total duration of traveling is more than 24 Hours therefore, most of the time was consumed in travelling. It is submitted that the arrest memo annexed to the petition (at Annexure-D Page 28) clearly reflects that he has been arrested on 27.07.2025 at 16:00 Hours by the CID Crime Gandhinagar. In fact, even the remand application dated 28.07.2025 (at Annexure-C Page 22), clearly reflects that preliminary inquiry was made thereafter, medical and other examinations were carried out and only thereafter, on 27.07.2025, at 16:00 Hours he was arrested. At this juncture it is worth placing before the Hon'ble Court that even if very strict presumption of 24 Hours is to be drawn then also if the time consumed travelling from Gurugram Haryana to Gandhinagar, Gujarat via Delhi and carrying out medical and other formality is considered, the arrest on 27.07.2025 at 16:00 Hours cannot be said to be bad. In fact, when the present petitioner was produced before the Ld. Court concerned, on 28.07.2025, neither any grievance was raised nor a whisper with regards to the any of the averments made in this petition in context of Section 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure now Section 58 and 187 of the BNSS Act 2023 or Section 50 of the Code of Criminal now Section 47 of the BNSS Act 2023 either by the petitioner or by his representing counsel. In fact, even at the time of remand application 47 dated 28.07.2025 and thereafter, the present petitioner was represented by his counsel before the Ld. Trial Court and arguments were made. The petitioner was made aware about all the details and grounds of arrest orally and his counsel had perused all the papers and thereafter, had argued the case before the ld.Court. "
The fact remains that the petitioner was not free to move around on his own volition and was all throughout in the custody of the investigating officers. Nothing is placed on record by the respondent to substantiate that from 25.07.2025 to 27.07.2025, the petitioner was not taken into custody. In this behalf, it is interesting to note the averments made in the application dated 28.07.2025, for handing over the custody of the petitioner, wherein in the second paragraph, terming the petitioner as accused it is stated that the accused is detained from Signature Global Golf Greece Residency, Section 79, Gurugaon, Haryana and was brought by road to Gandhinagar.
Page 34 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined Although it is sought to be argued by the respondent-State that the petitioner was arrested only on 27.07.2025, such stand is not in sync with their own understanding as reflected in the application dated 28.07.2025 while handing over the custody. Therefore, it is clear that since 25.07.2025, the petitioner was deprived of his personal liberty to move around and was not at liberty to go wherever he wished to. Clearly, the petitioner, was prevented from moving as per his freewill and was under strict supervision and complete control of the investigating officers inasmuch as, the petitioner was brought from Gurugram to Ahmedabad and was taken to Gandhinagar. Therefore, the contention of the investigating officer that when the preliminary inquiry was being carried out and in the absence of any conclusion of arrest there was no reason at the relevant point of time i.e. on 25.07.2025 to arrest the petitioner, is misplaced. Moreover, in the FIR the petitioner is arraigned as an accused and the anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioner before the trial court and this Court, were opposed tooth and nail, raising the ground that the custody of the petitioner is very much necessary. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was apprehended rather arrested on 25.07.2025 at 10:00 p.m. and the respondents having failed to produce him before the nearest learned Judicial Magistrate First Class within 24 hours of the arrest, the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated for non-compliance of the statutory as well as constitutional mandate.
17. In continuation, further contention is raised by the Page 35 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined petitioner that the respondents ought to have prayed for transit remand from the nearest learned Magistrate and having failed to do so, the arrest is illegal. Pertinently, the respondents since inception, have portrayed that the arrest was made only on 27.07.2025 and the petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28.07.2025 at 3:30 p.m. i.e. within 24 hours and hence, there was no need of applying for the transit remand as the provision permits exclusion of the time necessary for the journey. In the case on hand, either of the parties have not placed on record the details regarding the travel time. Assuming without concluding that for covering the distance from Gurugram to Ahmedabad, approximate time consumed would be around 15 hours and if one adds 15 hours to the 24 hours period from 25.07.2025 10:00 p.m., it would be coming to an end on 27.07.2025 at around 1:00 p.m. In any event the petitioner ought to have been produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate latest by 6:00 p.m. on 27.07.2025 (i.e. 15 hours + 24 hours + 5 hours(buffer period)); however, the petitioner was produced only on 28.07.2025 at 3:30 p.m. Even after excluding the travel time, the petitioner cannot be said to have been produced within 24 hours. In such an eventuality, it was expected of the respondents to have opted for transit remand; however, no such transit remand is prayed for despite the admitted position as is evident from the record that the petitioner was detained on 25.07.2025 at 10:00 p.m. On reading Section 58 in juxtaposition with sub-section (1) of section 187, it is clear that a person arrested shall not be detained for more than 24 hours, (excluding the time Page 36 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined necessary for the journey) and shall be produced before the nearest learned Magistrate, whether having jurisdiction or not. Considering the settled principle of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, in the case of Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and specially, paragraphs 87 to 89, the investigating agencies were obligated to secure the transit remand. The same are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"87. Considering that the nature of criminal law regime in In- dia, entwined with State amendments, the exercise of the juris- diction for grant of extra-territorial anticipatory bail must be cognizant of the possibility of forum shopping. We also deem it necessary to take note of the evolution of the law on inter-state arrests, as this lies at the heart of 'apprehension of arrest,' for which the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Session are attracted in case the accused resides in or is located in a territorial jurisdiction different from the jurisdic- tion in which cognizance of crime is taken by the Court of com- petent jurisdiction.
88. Section 48 of CrPC permits the police to pursue an accused in other jurisdictions. A police officer, for the purpose of arrest- ing without a warrant, one whom he is allowed to arrest, may pursue an individual anywhere in India. Prior to effecting the arrest outside a particular jurisdiction, the police is obligated to secure the transit remand i.e. the remand of the accused, for taking him from one place to another in their own custody, usu- ally for the purpose of producing him before the concerned magistrate who has jurisdiction to try/commit the case. The pri- mary purpose of such a remand is to enable the police to shift the person in custody from the place of arrest to the place where the matter can be investigated and tried. However in various cases, the police and investigating agencies have failed to exercise necessary restraint while functioning within their legal remit. It is for the aforesaid reason that an accused appre- hending arrest seeks pre-arrest bail. The Courts in India have to be vigilant about such applications being filed particularly when a person alleged to have committed an offence can be proceeded with by setting the criminal law in motion in a place other than the place where the offence has actually occurred. In such circumstances the Courts must balance the interest of the accused in the context of the salutary principle of access to justice which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution as well as a Directive Principle of State Policy, especially Article Page 37 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined 39(A). More importantly, it is a facet of Article 14 of the Consti- tution which guarantees to every person in the country, equal- ity before the law and equal protection of the law.
89. In this case, we are concerned with what is loosely termed as 'transit anticipatory bail'. As we have seen, the ex- pression 'anticipatory bail' is not defined in the CrPC though it is traceable to Section 438 of CrPC This Court in Balchand Jain had defined anticipatory bail to mean bail in anticipation of ar- rest. The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia has held that filing of FIR is not a condition precedent for exercising power under Section 438 of CrPC What is required for invoca- tion of power under Section 438 is that the person seeking an- ticipatory bail should show reasonable belief of imminent ar- rest. If the expression 'anticipatory bail' is not a defined expres- sion, then it is quite but natural that the larger expression 'transit anticipatory bail' would not find any exposition in the CrPC. Perhaps the need and necessity for transit anticipa- tory bail has occasioned because the police has been conferred power under the CrPC to pursue an accused in other jurisdic- tions. Immediately upon affecting the arrest of a person outside the jurisdiction where the offence is registered, the police is ob- ligated to secure a transit remand. The arrested person has to be produced before the nearest magistrate. If such a magis- trate finds that he has no jurisdiction to try the case in which the accused has been arrested, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a magistrate having the jurisdiction to try the case or to commit it for trial. Thus, the police is obligated to se- cure a transit remand of the accused for taking him from the place where he is arrested to the place where the crime is reg- istered, for production before the competent magistrate in terms of the requirement of Article 22. As we have already noted, the primary purpose of such a transit remand is to en- able the police to shift the person in custody from the place of arrest to the place where the matter can be investigated. It ap- pears that from the aforesaid requirement of transit remand, has arisen the necessity of 'transit anticipatory bail' for, an af- fected person cannot be without a remedy."
Therefore, on both the counts, this Court is of the opinion that the arrest of the petitioner on 25.07.2025 is against the provisions of law and stands vitiated.
18. Although, the above referred ground, is sufficient to allow the writ petition; for the sake of completeness this Court, shall deal with second contention regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Before dealing with the Page 38 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined said contention, at this stage, it may be noted that heavy reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Mihir R. Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and especially paragraph 56, which reads thus:
"56. In conclusion, it is held that
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.
The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free."
It is argued that the Apex Court, has held and observed that where the arresting officer is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. It has been further argued that the grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case atleast two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate. The requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing atleast two hours prior to the production of the arrestee, in terms of the observations made in paragraph 58 of the judgment, would not apply to the facts of the case inasmuch as, the petitioner is arrested on 25.07.2025 whereas, in the judgment of the Apex Page 39 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined Court, it is clarified that the procedure as affirmed shall govern the arrests henceforth i.e. the arrests made on and after 06.11.2025. Paragraph 58 reads thus:
"58. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."
19. Another issue raised is regarding non-supply of the grounds of arrest either orally or in writing to the petitioner and in the opinion of this Court, the said contention deserves to be answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
20. Discernibly, the petitioner, was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28.07.2025 (page 22 of the compilation) incorporating the reasons for arrest. Accepting the said application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded to the effect that the arrestee is produced at 3:30 p.m. and upon being asked, he has no complaint against the police officer. The endorsement further suggests that the arrestee is taken in judicial custody. Besides, application seeking remand of even date was filed; however, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said application was served upon the petitioner except arguing that from the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is clear that the Page 40 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined learned Advocate was aware about the grounds of arrest and accordingly had made the submissions. The said stand is stated to be rejected inasmuch as, the requirement of the law is that the accused/arrestee and/or family or relative should be served with the grounds of arrest either orally or in writing and in the language known to him in a meaningful manner. Besides, the arrest memo which is placed on record (Annexure D) does not specify the grounds of arrest except mentioning the provisions of the BNS, the name and address of the petitioner, the place of the arrest and in whose presence the arrest was made and the telephone numbers.
21. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that by now it is well settled that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not a statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, making it applicable to all offences including those under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Keeping this in mind, for the issue of providing the grounds of arrest, apt would be the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (supra). Relevant paragraphs 27 to 30 read thus:-
"27. Thus, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the submission of learned ASG that in a case of preventive detention, the grounds of detention need not be provided to a detenue in writing is ex facie untenable in eyes of law.
28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the 'grounds' of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of Page 41 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.
29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non- compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.
30. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal(supra) laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused appellant is noted to be rejected."
22. Relevant would also be the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh(supra) Paragraphs 16 to 36 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-
"16. In Vihaan Kumar (supra), this Court eruditely speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka made some very important observations which we must reproduce as under:
"Therefore, as far as Article 22(1) is concerned, compliance can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of farrest to the person arrested. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands. That is how, in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, this Court held that the mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. However, under Article 22(1), there is no requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every person arrested to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not Page 42 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined communicated to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement incorporated in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for arresting the person without a warrant exist. Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the objects stated above.
14.Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.
15.We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra). This Court has suggested that the proper and ideal course of communicating the grounds of arrest is to provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before a police officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of Page 43 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined arrest have to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if the grounds of arrest are communicated in writing. Although there is no requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 are suggestions that merit consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may not be practicable to implement what is suggested. If the course, as suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non- compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance the rights of a person arrested with the interests of the society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply with the requirements of Article 22.
16.An attempt was made by learned Senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.
17.Another argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that even if the appellant is released on the grounds of violating Article 22, the first respondent can arrest him again. At this stage, it is not necessary to decide the issue.
18. In the present case, 1st respondent relied upon an entry in the case diary allegedly made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. For the reasons which will follow hereafter, we are rejecting the argument made by the 1st respondent. If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. Therefore, in a Page 44 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined given case, even assuming that the case of the police regarding requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in the case diary, there must be a contemporaneous record, which records what the grounds of arrest were. When an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police.
19. An argument was sought to be canvassed that in view of sub- Section (1) of Section 50 of CrPC, there is an option to communicate to the person arrested full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or the other grounds for the arrest. Section 50 cannot have the effect of diluting the requirement of Article 22(1). If held so, Section 50 will attract the vice of unconstitutionality. Section 50 lays down the requirement of communicating the full particulars of the offence for which a person is arrested to him. The 'other grounds for such arrest' referred to in Section 50(1) have nothing to do with the grounds of arrest referred to in Article 22(1). The requirement of Section 50 is in addition to what is provided in Article 22(1). Section 47 of the BNSS is the corresponding provision. Therefore, what we have held about Section 50 will apply to Section 47 of the BNSS.
20. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made. The reason is that due to non-compliance, the arrest is rendered illegal; therefore, the arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. It is the obligation of all the Courts to uphold the fundamental rights.
CONCLUSIONS
21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);
b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he Page 45 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);
d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);
e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and
f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established." (Emphasis supplied)
17. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh while fully concurring with the views expressed by Justice Abhay S. Oka added a few lines of his own as under:
2. The issue on the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which has also been incorporated in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Section 19 thereof has been succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of arrest to the person arrested in writing has been explained in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as to Page 46 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined be meaningful to serve the intended purpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said constitutional mandate has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of the CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). It may also be noted that the aforesaid provision of requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other persons of the accused as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information as provided under Section 50A of the CrPC. As may be noted, this is in the addition of the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) of the CrPC.
3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal." (Emphasis supplied)
18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said to have been laid down, rather very well explained, in Vihaan Kumar (supra):Page 47 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined
a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition.
b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.
c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Article 22(1).
d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1).
e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.
f) If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document.
The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed.
g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police authorities.
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
19. We must clarify one important aspect of Vihaan Kumar (supra). In Vihaan Kumar (supra) the case was that there was an absolute failure on the part of the police to provide the grounds of arrest. In Vihaan Kumar (supra) reliance was placed upon the entry in the case diary which recorded that the appellant therein was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the arrestee, however, the case put up is that those grounds are not meaningful and are bereft of necessary essential information.
Page 48 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined
20. In this appeal our endeavor would be to consider whether the grounds of arrest supplied to the appellant's son at the time of his arrest could be said to be meaningful and sufficient enough to give a broad idea to the person arrested of the accusations levelled and as to why he was being taken into custody.
21. Having looked into the grounds of arrest which were supplied to the son of the appellant at the time of his arrest, it is difficult for us to take the view that the grounds do not make any sense or are not meaningful or are just an eyewash.
22. In the case of State of Bombay v. Atma Ram reported in 1951 SCC 43 : AIR 1951 SC 157 (C), it was held by this Court that, the test is whether the communication of the grounds of arrest is sufficient to enable the detained person to make a representation at the earliest opportunity.
23. Similarly in the case of Magan Lal Jivabhai, in re, AIR 1951 Bom 33(D), it was held that, the only possible and reasonable construction that can be put upon the language of Article 22(6) is that the detaining authority, while furnishing grounds of detention, is required to state the facts on account of which he is satisfied that the detention is necessary in the interest of the security of the State, maintenance, of public order, etc.
24. The only privilege a detaining authority can claim against the disclosure of facts is on the grounds of public interest. If no facts at all leading to the detention of a detenu are to be mentioned in the grounds which are to be furnished to him, then obviously the intention underlying the enactment of Article 22(6) would be frustrated.
25. In both the cases referred to above, the persons had been detained under the provisions of Preventive Detention Act. The information to be supplied to such a person is governed by Clause (5) of Article 22. In the present case, the son of the appellant has been arrested for specific offences as mentioned in the grounds of arrest. His case is governed by Clause (1) and not by Clause (5) of Article 22. However, under both the clauses, certain information has to be supplied to the person arrested and detained.
26. Under Clause (1), the ground for arrest has to be communicated to the person arrested. Under Clause (5) the Page 49 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined grounds on which the order of detention has been made has to be communicated to the person detained.
27. The object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest should be communicated to the person arrested has been very succinctly explained in Vihaan Kumar (supra). On learning about the grounds for arrest, the person concerned will be in a position to make an application before the appropriate Court for bail, or move the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Further, the information will enable the arrested person to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of his trial. For these reasons, it has been provided by the Constitution that, the ground for the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon as possible.
28. For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of a case.
29. The rule in Article 22(1) that a person upon being arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest is similar to, though not exactly identical with, the rules prevailing in England and in United States of America. The rule prevailing in England is that "in normal circumstances an arrest without warrant either by a policeman or by a private person can be justified only if it is an arrest on a charge made known to the person arrested"; (per Viscount Simon L.C. in -- 'Christie v. Leachinsky (1947 AC 573 at p. 586(F)."
30. It is a rule of common law and is described in different languages by different authorities, but the meaning is the same; the arrested person must be told for what he is arrested or be informed of the cause of his arrest. In the United States the accused has the constitutional right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"; see 6th Amendment to the American Constitution. In Hooper v. Lane, (1857) 6 HLC 443 : 10 ER 1368 (G), one of the reasons for the rule was said to be that the person arrested should know whether he is or is not bound to submit to the arrest. In Christie v.Leachinsky reported in (1947) AC 573 Lord Simonds observed at page 591 as thus:
Page 50 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined "Putting first things first, I would say that it is the right of every citizen to be free from arrest unless there is in some other citizen, whether a constable or not, the right to arrest him. And I would say next that it is the corollary of the right of every citizen to be thus free from arrest that he should be entitled to resist arrest unless that arrest is lawful. How can these rights be reconciled with the proposition that he may be arrested without knowing why he is arrested? ....... Blind, unquestioning obedience is the law of tyrants and of slaves: it does not yet flourish on English soil".
31. Professor Glanvile L. Williams in his article "Requisites of a Valid Arrest" in (1954) Criminal Law Review, at page 16, criticised the reason given by Lord Simonds as "somewhat legalistic" because very few people know the law of arrest in such a way that they can decide on the spot whether the arrest to which they are being subjected to is legal. In his opinion, the true reason is a different one, e.g., the reason given by Viscount 11th Simon L.C. in the same case at page 588 in the following words:
"If the charge on suspicion of which the man if arrested is then and there made known to him, he has the opportunity of giving an explanation of any misunderstanding or of calling attention to other persons for whom he may have been mistaken with the result that further inquiries may save him from the consequences of false accusation."
32. Another reason given by Lord Simonds at page 592 is that the arrested person may without a moment's delay take such steps as will enable him to regain freedom. One more reason is that it acts as a safeguard against despotism and over-zeal. As remarked by Professor Glanville L. Williams (supra), at page 17:
"the rule has the effect of preventing the police from arresting on vague general suspicion, not knowing the precise crime suspected but hoping to obtain evidence of the commission of some crime for which they have power to arrest".
33. In McNabb v. United States of America reported in (1943) 318 US 332 (H), Frankfurter, J. observed at page 343:
Page 51 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined "Experience has therefore counselled that safeguards must be provided against the dangers of the overzealous as well as the despotic ................ Legislation such as this, requiring that the police must with reasonable promptness show legal cause for detaining arrested persons, constitutes an important safeguard".
34. In United States v. Cruikshank reported in (1876) 92 US 542, it was observed by Waite C.J. that the accused is given the right to have a specification of the charge against him in order that he may decide whether he should present his defence by motion to quash, demurrer or plea.
35. The debates of the Constituent Assembly which framed the Constitution are relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the reason behind the insertion of a certain Article in the Constitution. In the Draft of the Constitution, the Article corresponding to the Article under consideration was Article 15A. The reason given for the inclusion of the said Article was that it contained safeguards against illegal or arbitrary arrests (9 Constituent Assembly Debates, p. 1497).(See: Vimal Kishore Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 All 56)
36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough. (See: Vimal Kishore Mehrotra (supra)"
23. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the said judgment to contend that if the grounds of arrest are within the knowledge of the person arrested, or he is told why he has been arrested or about the commission of certain offence for which he would be put to trial, then the condition stands satisfied. In the case on hand, Page 52 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined there is not a whisper or semblance of any material produced through which it can be said that the petitioner was informed orally much less in writing about the grounds of his arrest. Thus, in the absence of compliance of the said requirement merely on the basis that the learned Advocate while opposing the application of remand has argued the matter, would not be sufficient. Therefore, on this count as well, the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated and the petitioner deserves to be set free.
24. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith and set at liberty. Pertinently, the FIR is lodged and in furtherance thereof, upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is already filed and the matter is pending before the court concerned; however, we clarify that the findings recorded hereinabove that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal, shall not affect the merits of the charge- sheet and the case pending before the court concerned. Needless to further clarify that the trial court shall be at liberty to impose conditions to its satisfaction (including requiring personal bond and surety of the petitioner) and other such conditions as it may deem fit. Moreover, the petitioner shall make himself available as and when required and cooperate with the proceedings before the trial court.
25. Before parting, we would like to express our displeasure for what happened before this Court during the course of the hearing. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner requested this Court that he is desirous of filing the written submissions to which, it was conveyed that the Court Page 53 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined has recorded the submissions and written submissions are not required. Despite which, there was insistence shown by the learned advocate for the petitioner stating that by no means this Court can refuse to accept the written submissions. Requiring the written submissions would be the discretion of the Court and not the discretion or insistence on the part of the learned Advocate. As the request of the learned Advocate was refused by this Court, it was expected of the learned Advocate to have acceded to the refusal and have not filed the written submissions; however, exhibiting adamant attitude the learned Advocate chose to file it with the Registry through e- mail mode which was operating during the Covid time. Such attempt, on the part of the learned Advocate is deprecated. Even in the past, this Court on 05.05.2026, had to pass the following order:
"1. Yesterday Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Dennis Mavadhiya, learned advocate for the petitioner had made submissions at length in the post lunch session on the facts and has placed on record the compilation of judgments. Compilations-1 and 2 contain as many as twenty judgments and compilation-3 contains fifteen judgments. In all, the compilations contains thirty-five judgments. As post lunch session Mr. Upadhyay could not finish his submissions; this Court yesterday inquired from him and it was informed that he would be taking another half an hour and the matter was kept today. Today, Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned advocate orally submitted that he is desirous of placing some more judgments, maybe four or five in number.
2. In the pre-lunch session, this Court was engaged in taking up the Habeas Corpus matters wherein the corpora were present and hence, in those matters, the proceedings were conducted in chamber.
3. Today after lunch, Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned Advocate had commenced his submissions around 02:45 p.m., referring to the three compilations. Judgments were cited from Page 54 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined the compilations up to item no.11. During the course of the arguments, this Court tried to find out the merits of the matter and requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to assist. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has briefly addressed the Court to which Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned Advocate, insisted that in view of the brief address by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he would like to read the judgments of the Apex Court in further detail by referring the facts of each of the case. Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned Advocate, then started reading the facts of the judgment at item no.11 when yet another twenty-five judgments were to be cited. Although assured for half an hour, the matter had continued from 02:45 p.m until 5:00 p.m. When this Court requested Mr. Upadhyay, learned Advocate that in view of the paucity of time, it would not be possible for the Court to look into facts of judgments in detail to which, Mr. Upadhyay, learned Advocate insisted reading of the judgments including the facts. The judgment already read at item no.11. When was asked to give brief reference, the learned Advocate had not only closed the file expressing frustration but, he slammed it and left it for the Court to pass appropriate orders as he is desirous of challenging the order before the Apex Court.
4. Mr Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned Advocate was heard uniterrupted post-lunch since 2:45 p.m. However, only in the judgment which is cited at item no.11, the Court tried to inquire that how that judgment would be relevant, Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate had expressed his unwarranted displeasure which this Court does not approve.
5. Moreover, this Court had heard other matters in the pre-lunch session. Not that the Court is averse to consider the judgments but the insistence of the learned counsel was for keeping aside all other matters and the captioned matter should be and ought to be heard giving priority, it being a matter of illegal detention according to him. No doubt, liberty of a person is of paramount importance and this Court, is hearing it. The other matters were corpora were made available were also equally important to be heard. Owing to the paucity of time, this request was made to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was yet to make his submissions.
6. Offering one more opportunity, we are keeping the matter tomorrow i.e. on 06.05.2026. If Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned Advocate wishes to make further submissions, he may do so, or else the Court will hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and pass appropriate order as desired by the learned Advocate for the petitioner."
26. Such demeanor exhibited by the learned Advocate Page 55 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3662/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/05/2026 undefined during the course of the hearing is not in a right earnest and is deprecated.
27. In view of the above discussion, the petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (D. M. VYAS, J) SINDHU NAIR Page 56 of 56 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 23:55:28 IST 2026