In an important ruling on the scope of habeas corpus petitions in criminal cases, the Allahabad High Court has held that an accused cannot seek release through a habeas corpus petition by challenging the legality of the initial arrest or remand after a charge sheet has been filed, cognizance has been taken, and the trial has commenced.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Neeraj, who had alleged that his arrest violated constitutional safeguards because the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in the manner required by law.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case registered in Lalitpur involving serious offences, including allegations under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC. He approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition, contending that the arresting authorities failed to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing and did not inform his family members or authorized persons.
Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions, the petitioner argued that non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution rendered the arrest illegal and consequently vitiated the subsequent remand orders.
The State opposed the plea, pointing out that the petitioner had been in custody for over two years, charges had already been framed, witnesses were being examined, and his detention was based on judicial orders passed during the trial.
The Bench undertook an extensive review of the law governing habeas corpus and examined both older and recent Supreme Court precedents. It noted that earlier judgments consistently held that while considering a habeas corpus petition, courts must examine the legality of the detention existing at the time of hearing rather than the legality of the initial arrest.
The Court observed that once a charge sheet is filed and a competent court takes cognizance, the original remand order under Section 167 CrPC loses significance and is replaced by subsequent judicial orders.
The Bench stated that,
“Once investigation is concluded, charge sheet is submitted and an order of cognizance is passed, the right to challenge the initial illegality in the order of remand cannot be enforced” through a habeas corpus petition.
It further held that after cognizance, an accused may raise grievances relating to Articles 21 and 22 through statutory remedies such as bail applications, but not through a habeas corpus petition.
The Court noted that the petitioner had approached it at a highly belated stage. Charges had already been framed in August 2024, the trial had commenced, and prosecution witnesses were being examined when the petition was filed.
The Bench also rejected the argument that subsequent remand orders under Section 309 CrPC were illegal, finding no infirmity in the trial court's remand process.
“The petitioner has approached this court at extremely belated stage questioning the illegality in the initial remand order,” the Bench observed while concluding that the challenge lacked merit.
Dismissing the petition, the Allahabad High Court held that a habeas corpus petition challenging an allegedly illegal initial arrest or remand is not maintainable after the filing of the charge sheet, taking of cognizance, committal of the case, or commencement of trial.
The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims and rejected the plea.
Case Details:
Case Title: Neeraj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 218 of 2026
Judges: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
Decision Date: 27 May 2026
