Supplying Grounds of Arrest on Separate Paper Invalid if Not Mentioned in Arrest Memo: Allahabad High Court

The Bench emphasised that the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest is not an empty formality but a fundamental protection flowing from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory scheme governing arrests. If the grounds are supplied separately, the arrest memo must clearly record and acknowledge that fact. Otherwise, the safeguard would be rendered illusory.

A division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani observed, “Though the separate grounds/reasons of arrest are bearing the signature of the petitioner i.e a countersigned by the person arrested- the petitioner, yet there is no witness to the said grounds of arrest. This leads to the only inescapable conclusion that had the said grounds/reasons of arrest been prepared simultaneously with the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026, the same would duly have been mentioned on the arrest memo itself and would also have been attested by the witness who has attested the arrest memo as annexed with the petition. Thus, it is clearly apparent that the said grounds/ reasons of arrest have been prepared subsequently and though may be bearing the signature of the petitioner but do not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 36 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra)”,

While referring to the principles in Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telengana and Ors 2024 (17) SCC 294 said, “…it clearly emerges that there is a substantive difference between the writ of habeas corpus and remedies under judicial review inasmuch as the latter are discretionary and the Court may refuse release on practical grounds but a writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right granted ex debito justitiae”.

Advocate Skand Bajpai appeared for the petitioner and Shiv Nath Tilhari, AGA appeared for the respondent.

The observation of the High Court came in a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of a young woman alleging that his daughter had been illegally detained by a man with whom she was in a relationship. An FIR had been registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC along with provisions of the POCSO Act, alleging kidnapping and abduction.

During the proceedings, the police sought to justify their action by contending that the grounds of arrest had been furnished to the accused on a separate document.

However, the Court noted that the arrest memo itself did not contain the grounds of arrest nor did it make any reference to the alleged separate sheet. In such circumstances, the Court held that this practice defeats the very purpose of the constitutional safeguard, which is to ensure transparency and accountability at the time of arrest.

“A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate would indicate that the learned Magistrate though has considered the material available on record yet he has failed to consider that the grounds/reasons of arrest, as detailed separately, do not form part of the arrest memo as they do not find mention anywhere in the arrest memo and further also do not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 36 of B.N.S.S, 2023 and thus it is apparent that the remand order has been passed in an absolutely mechanical manner and consequently, even if the remand has been given by the learned Magistrate yet the instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus would be maintainable”, the bench had further noted.

On facts, however, the Court found that the woman, who was produced before it, categorically stated that she was a major and had voluntarily accompanied the private respondent and stayed with him of her own free will. In view of this statement, the Court held that no case of illegal detention was made out, and therefore the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable.

While referring to Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra- 2026 (1) SCC 500 the bench further observed, “…no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest meaning thereby that it casts a mandatory and unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest. Supply of grounds of arrest have also been held to be grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in Part III of the Constitution under the head of ‘Fundamental Rights’”.

While dismissing the habeas corpus petition, the Court nevertheless highlighted the importance of strict compliance with arrest procedures, reiterating that constitutional safeguards cannot be diluted by procedural shortcuts such as supplying grounds of arrest on unreferenced separate sheets.

Cause Title: Shivam Chaurasiya Thru. His Brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:10501-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Skand Bajpai, Abhyudaya Mishra, Advocates.

Respondent: Shiv Nath Tilahari and Shri Anurag Verma, Additional Government Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment