Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds

“Once the Edifice Goes, the Superstructure Collapses”, In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards, the Allahabad High Court declared the arrest and judicial remand of the petitioner illegal for non-supply of written grounds of arrest.

The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Abdul Moin, J. and Hon’ble Mrs. Babita Rani, J. held that failure to furnish proper written grounds of arrest in compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500 vitiates the arrest itself. The Court observed that “once the edifice goes, the superstructure collapses,” meaning that an illegal arrest cannot be cured by a subsequent remand order.

The writ petition was allowed, the remand order dated 29.01.2026 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Arrest in POCSO Case Challenged Through Habeas Corpus

The petitioner was arrested in Case Crime No. 15 of 2026 registered at Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had established physical relations with the minor victim and subsequently blackmailed her. He was arrested on 28.01.2026 and remanded to fourteen days’ judicial custody by the Special Judge, POCSO, on 29.01.2026.

Challenging the arrest memo and remand, the petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus contending that the arrest memo merely mentioned the crime number and sections but did not disclose specific grounds of arrest, thereby violating Article 22(1).

“Grounds Must Be Furnished in Writing – Without Exception”

The Bench extensively relied upon Mihir Rajesh Shah, where the Supreme Court held:

“The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest… is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard… Non-compliance… would lead to the custody or detention being rendered illegal.”

The High Court emphasized that Article 22(1) casts a “mandatory and unexceptional duty” on the State to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing, in order to enable effective defence and consultation with counsel.

The Court observed that the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026 merely referred to the crime number and statutory provisions. Columns meant for “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest” did not contain any specific factual allegations justifying arrest.

Separate Sheet of Grounds Rejected – “Does Not Conform to Section 36 BNSS”

The State sought to rely upon a separate sheet titled “reasons/grounds of arrest,” allegedly signed by the petitioner and recorded in the case diary.

The Court, however, found serious infirmities. The separate grounds were not mentioned in the arrest memo. Column 13 of the arrest memo, meant for grounds, was left blank. There was no indication that grounds were being supplied separately. Moreover, the separate sheet was not attested by any witness as required under Section 36 of the BNSS, which mandates that the memorandum of arrest be attested by at least one family member or respectable person and countersigned by the arrested person.

The Court concluded that the separate grounds appeared to have been prepared subsequently and did not form part of the arrest memo.

The Bench categorically held that the procedure adopted “does not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah.”

Remand Cannot Cure Illegal Arrest – “Once the Edifice Goes, the Superstructure Collapses”

The State argued that since the petitioner had been remanded by a competent Magistrate, any defect in arrest stood cured, relying on Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi.

Rejecting this contention, the Court relied upon Mihir Rajesh Shah and Vihaan Kumar, holding that an unconstitutional arrest cannot be validated by subsequent remand or filing of charge-sheet.

The Bench observed:

“It is a settled proposition of law that once the edifice goes the superstructure collapses.”

Thus, if the arrest is illegal for violation of Article 22(1), the remand order consequential to such arrest also becomes invalid.

Mechanical Remand – Magistrate Failed to Scrutinise Compliance

The Court further examined whether the remand order suffered from illegality.

Relying on Manubhai Ratilal Patel and Gautam Navlakha, the Bench reiterated that a Magistrate is not to act as a “post office” while granting remand. The Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards.

The Court found that the Magistrate failed to notice that the arrest memo did not contain proper grounds and that the separate sheet did not comply with Section 36 BNSS. Consequently, the remand was held to have been passed in a mechanical manner.

This, the Court held, made the habeas corpus petition maintainable despite the remand.

Habeas Corpus – A Writ of Right

The Bench relied upon Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana to underline that habeas corpus is a writ of right, granted “ex debito justitiae,” and stands on a different footing from ordinary judicial review.

The Court reiterated that where detention is unlawful due to violation of fundamental rights, the High Court has not merely discretion but duty to grant relief.

Holding that the arrest violated Article 22(1) and the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court declared the arrest illegal. The remand order dated 29.01.2026 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith, subject to not being wanted in any other case.

Liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

This ruling is one of the first significant applications of Mihir Rajesh Shah after its pronouncement. It sends a strong message that:

Grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and must be part of the arrest record.
Subsequent remand cannot sanitize an unconstitutional arrest.
Magistrates must independently verify compliance with constitutional safeguards before authorizing detention.

The judgment reinforces that personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 is not procedural rhetoric but a binding constitutional command.

Date of Decision: 10/02/2026