In a significant ruling on arrest procedures, the Patna High Court dismissed a plea seeking compensation for alleged illegal detention but sharply reminded police and magistrates of their duty to follow Supreme Court guidelines on arrest.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, while rejecting the writ petition filed by Lallan Kumar Yadav, made it clear that although the petition lacked merit at this stage, the conduct of the police and the magistrate did not inspire confidence.
The judgment was delivered on February 13, 2026.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Allows Single Mother to Change Daughter’s Name, Caste in School Record
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a resident of Saran district, approached the High Court claiming he had been illegally detained by Sonepur Police for three days - from July 30 to August 1, 2020 - without any FIR (First Information Report) or lawful basis.
According to him, the FIR in Sonepur P.S. Case No. 574 of 2020 was registered only on August 1, 2020. Yet, he alleged, he was picked up two days earlier and kept in custody. He was produced before a Judicial Magistrate on August 2 and later granted regular bail on August 13. He was released on August 17 after furnishing bail bonds.
His counsel argued that the offences mentioned in the FIR carried a maximum punishment of up to three years. In such cases, immediate arrest is not mandatory. The police, he contended, failed to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which lay down strict conditions for arrest in offences punishable up to seven years.
The petitioner also argued that no notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code - which requires police to issue a notice instead of arrest in appropriate cases - was served on him.
Read also:- MP High Court Refuses Wife’s Plea to Transfer Matrimonial Case, Allows Video Appearance
State’s Stand
The State denied any illegal detention. Its counsel submitted that the petitioner was only summoned for inquiry on July 30 in connection with a written complaint. He was formally arrested only on August 1, after registration of the FIR, and produced before the Magistrate the very next day.
Importantly, the State pointed out that the petitioner never challenged the remand order before a higher court. Instead, he applied for regular bail, which was granted.
It was further submitted that the Bihar Human Rights Commission had also examined the matter, and an inquiry conducted under its direction found no illegality in the arrest.
Read also:- MP High Court Sets Aside Conditional Tractor Seizure Order in Tikamgarh Robbery Dispute Case
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, Justice Kumar noted that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had been arrested on July 30.
“The petitioner was arrested on 01.08.2020 and produced before the Magistrate on 02.08.2020,” the court observed, adding that the earlier date appeared to relate to inquiry proceedings.
The court also stressed that the petitioner did not challenge the arrest or remand at the appropriate time. Instead, he sought bail.
The bench remarked that by applying for regular bail without first challenging the remand, the petitioner effectively accepted the legality of his detention. Raising the issue much later, through a writ petition seeking compensation, was considered too late.
“Had the petitioner approached the Court immediately after remand, the compliance of the Supreme Court’s directions could have been examined,” the judge noted.
Read also:- Madras HC Orders FIR in MAWS Recruitment Scam, Says ED Letter Discloses Cognizable Offence Again
On Supreme Court Guidelines
Even while dismissing the petition, the court did not overlook procedural lapses.
Justice Kumar referred extensively to the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and reiterated in Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand. These rulings clearly state that police officers must not arrest automatically in cases where the maximum punishment is up to seven years. They must record reasons and follow a checklist. Magistrates, too, must verify compliance before authorising detention.
“The perusal of the case diary shows that the concerned police officer is totally oblivious of the direction of the Supreme Court,” the bench observed.
The court also said the Judicial Magistrate appeared unaware of the binding guidelines while granting remand.
However, it clarified that these observations would not change the outcome of the present case.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Quashes 498A FIR Against Husband, Says Vague Allegations Cannot Fuel
Directions Issued
While dismissing the writ petition, the court directed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the order among judicial officers.
A copy was also ordered to be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar, so that the guidelines on arrest are properly implemented by police officials.
The court noted that despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court and earlier instructions, compliance remained unsatisfactory.
Decision
Finding no legal basis to declare the detention illegal or award compensation, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Lallan Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1049 of 2021
Decision Date: 13 February 2026
