The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a judicial remand cannot legalise an arrest that was unconstitutional from the very beginning. Setting aside two remand orders passed by a magistrate, the Division Bench ruled that the petitioner's detention violated the constitutional safeguards governing arrest and personal liberty after police transported him across states without obtaining a transit remand.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered by the Cyber Police Station, Surguja, in July 2025 over allegations of an online investment fraud. According to the complaint, the victim was allegedly persuaded to invest money through mobile applications linked to share market trading, resulting in a financial loss exceeding ₹21 lakh. The police later investigated the matter under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act.
Petitioner Jitesh Anand @ Jitu challenged the legality of his arrest before the High Court. He contended that he was taken from his residence in Rohtak, Haryana, on 28 June 2026, transported through Delhi and other states, and ultimately produced before a magistrate in Ambikapur only on 30 June 2026 without obtaining a transit remand. He also alleged that mandatory legal safeguards were not followed during the process.
The State disputed these allegations, arguing that the petitioner had voluntarily accompanied the police after receiving a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and that his formal arrest took place only on 30 June 2026.
Court's Observations
After examining the record, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal concluded that the petitioner's liberty had effectively been curtailed from the evening of 28 June 2026.
Rejecting the State's claim of voluntary travel, the Bench observed:
“The constitutional guarantee contained in Article 22(2) cannot be defeated by postponing the formal preparation of an arrest memo.”
The Court further held that merely obtaining an endorsement from a person already under police control could not establish genuine consent to travel with the investigating agency.
The Bench noted that once a person's liberty is substantially restricted, constitutional protections become immediately applicable. Since no transit remand was obtained before transporting the petitioner across state boundaries, the continued detention violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the BNSS.
The Court also found that the magistrate had not adequately examined the objections concerning the absence of transit remand and the alleged illegal detention before authorising judicial and police custody.
As the Bench observed,
"Judicial remand cannot cure an illegal arrest or validate an unconstitutional detention."
Court's Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the remand orders dated 30 June and 3 July 2026. It declared that the petitioner's detention between 28 June and 30 June 2026 was illegal and unconstitutional for violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the provisions of the BNSS.
The Court directed that the petitioner be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including surrender of his passport, appearance before the investigating officer and trial court whenever required, and cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
The Bench clarified that its findings were confined to the legality of the arrest and detention and should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the allegations under investigation.
Case Details
Case Title: Jitesh Anand @ Jitu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: WPCR No. 388 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Decision Date: 03 August 2026
 chief. Eknath Shinde – Shiv Sena leader-300x169.webp)
