The Patna High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the arrest and continued judicial custody of an accused, holding that the alleged failure to furnish written grounds of arrest did not establish any prejudice in the facts of the case. The Division Bench observed that the accused was already aware of the allegations against him and had legal representation when he was produced before the Magistrate.
Background
The petition was filed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, seeking the release of his son, Divya Prakash, who was arrested on June 5, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 27/2026 registered at Chitragupta Nagar Police Station, Khagaria, under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The petitioner challenged the arrest, alleging that the investigating authorities had failed to provide written grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He also questioned the subsequent judicial remand orders and sought compensation for his son's continued detention.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that Divya Prakash was a named accused, knew about the allegations, had applied for anticipatory bail and had also sought cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued against him.
A Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Rana Vikram Singh examined whether the alleged non-service of written grounds of arrest justified interference with the remand order.
The Court noted that Divya Prakash had already approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail before his arrest. Further, when he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, his lawyer appeared through video conferencing and opposed the remand.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram, the Bench discussed the prejudice-oriented test, which examines whether an alleged procedural irregularity actually affected the arrested person's ability to defend himself.
The Supreme Court's observations, reproduced by the High Court, stated:
"The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend."
The Bench also referred to the purpose behind communicating grounds of arrest, as explained in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh:
"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."
The High Court concluded that the accused was not taken by surprise and had sufficient awareness of the allegations to oppose his remand through legal representation.
Holding that no demonstrable prejudice had been established, the Division Bench found no ground to interfere with the judicial custody through the habeas corpus petition.
The Court accordingly dismissed the writ application. It also directed that the cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed through its order dated October 28, 2026, be deposited within the stipulated two-week period, failing which recovery proceedings could be initiated in accordance with law.
Case Details
- Case Title: Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Others
- Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2204 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Rana Vikram Singh
- Decision Date: 30 October 2026
