In a significant ruling on personal liberty, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday declared the arrest of a 20-year-old man illegal, holding that police failed to provide proper written grounds of arrest as required by the Constitution and recent Supreme Court guidelines.
The Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Shivam Chaurasiya through his brother and directed that he be set free, unless wanted in any other case.
Read also:- Madras High Court Judge Recuses in CBI Case After ₹50 Lakh Bribery Allegation Letter Sent to Centre
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed in connection with Case Crime No. 15 of 2026 registered at Kandhai police station in Pratapgarh district. The FIR invoked sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
According to the petition, the accused and the alleged victim were in a relationship opposed by her family. The FIR alleged that the accused had established physical relations with the girl and later blackmailed her.
On January 28, 2026, Shivam Chaurasiya was called to the police station and arrested. He was produced before the Special Judge (POCSO) the next day and sent to 14 days’ judicial custody.
Before the High Court, his counsel argued that the arrest memo did not contain any specific reasons or grounds of arrest, making the detention unconstitutional.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Spectrum Is National Asset, Says Insolvency Code Cannot Wipe Out Govt Telecom Dues
What the Arrest Memo Showed
During the hearing, the bench closely examined the arrest memo. Columns meant for recording the “reasons” and “grounds” of arrest merely mentioned the crime number and the legal sections invoked. There was no explanation of why arrest was necessary in the case.
The State, however, produced a separate sheet claiming it contained the grounds of arrest, bearing the accused’s signature.
The bench was unconvinced.
The judges noted that the separate document was not mentioned in the arrest memo and was not attested by any independent witness, as required under Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This raised doubts about whether it was prepared later.
Supreme Court Law on Written Grounds
The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which made it mandatory for police to furnish written grounds of arrest.
The bench quoted the apex court’s view that informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is not a “mere formality” but a constitutional safeguard under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
“The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is sacrosanct and cannot be breached,” the High Court noted, referring to the Supreme Court’s observations.
It added that failure to comply renders both arrest and remand illegal.
Read also:- Supreme Court Orders Regularisation of Income Tax Casual Workers, Slams Discrimination in 2006 Poli
Can Remand Cure an Illegal Arrest?
The State argued that since a magistrate had already granted judicial remand, any defect in the arrest stood cured.
The bench rejected this submission.
It referred to Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, where the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus would lie if the remand order is mechanical or suffers from illegality.
The High Court observed that once the foundation - the arrest - is illegal, the superstructure - the remand - cannot stand.
“The remand order has been passed in an absolutely mechanical manner,” the bench said, pointing out that the magistrate failed to examine whether the constitutional requirement of supplying written grounds had been complied with.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail of Absconding Murder Accused in 2017 MP Political
Maintainability of Habeas Corpus
The State also questioned whether a habeas corpus petition was maintainable once judicial custody had been ordered.
The bench cited Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana to underline that habeas corpus is a writ of right when fundamental rights are violated.
The court emphasized that violation of Article 22(1) - which guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest - strikes at the heart of personal liberty.
Read also:- Supreme Court Acquits Two in 1994 Cement Diversion Case, Says No Law Existed to Punish
Court’s Decision
After examining the arrest memo, the separate grounds document, and the case diary, the High Court concluded that the police had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing proper written grounds of arrest.
The bench declared the arrest illegal. Consequently, it set aside the remand order dated January 29, 2026.
“The petitioner be set free provided he is not wanted in any other case,” the court directed.
The writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Shivam Chaurasiya Through His Brother v. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 47 of 2026
Decision Date: February 10, 2026
