Special Court Has Decided On Legality Of Arrest: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea Seeking Release Of Mahesh Joshi
The Court said that a profound lack of basic understanding regarding fundamental rights among the state police and judicial officers, directing comprehensive training for both departments.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the arrest of Mahesh Joshi by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, observing that once a competent court authorizes detention through consecutive judicial remand orders, a habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained to examine the underlying procedural lapses.
While noting that the investigative agency had grossly failed to communicate the mandatory "grounds of arrest" as distinct from the mere "reasons for arrest," and criticizing the lower court judge for mechanically granting police custody without addressing the petitioner's timely constitutional objections, the Vacation Bench held that such validly interceding judicial orders effectively bar the extraordinary remedy of a writ.
Consequently, the Court relegated the petitioner to seek standard statutory remedies to challenge the underlying remand orders while directing the state to immediately institute comprehensive training modules for its police force and judiciary to safeguard personal liberty meaningfully under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The Division Bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed, "...we are of considered view that since the arrest has already been made on 07.05.2026 and the grounds of non-compliance was raised before the learned Special Judge, but learned Special Judge either negligently or deliberately did not ensured compliance, has kept pending the issue and ultimately on 08.06.2026 dismissed the application, that too after 31 days of the arrest, and meanwhile several authorization orders for detention were passed, thus, now it is not possible for this Court to consider any Habeas Corpus Petition that detention is illegal due to non-supply of grounds of arrest to accused and family members."
Advocate Sneh Deep Khyaliya appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Rajendra Prasad appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The instant habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the release of his father, Dr. Mahesh Joshi (the detenue). The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the detenue under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following his arrest, the detenue was produced before the learned Special Judge (PC Act Cases), Jaipur, who remanded him to police custody.
At the time of the initial remand, the counsel for the detenue moved an application alleging non-compliance with statutory safeguards and established judicial precedents regarding arrest procedures. The Special Judge subsequently dismissed this application. In the interim, the detenue’s custody was extended from time to time through consecutive judicial remand orders, routing him into judicial custody. The petitioner approached the High Court asserting that the entire detention was completely illegal and lacked the authority of law.
Contentions of the Petitioner
It was contended that the arrest and subsequent detention of the detenue violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), rendering the custody illegal from its inception.
The Petitioner urged that neither the detenue nor his family members were informed of the specific grounds of arrest, either orally or in writing, prior to or immediately following the arrest.
It was submitted that the respondent authorities fabricated internal directives and manipulated the facts across multiple replies to conceal their procedural lapses. It was further stated that the arrest memo was not prepared at the spot but was backdated at the agency headquarters.
The petitioner argued that the Special Judge granted police custody in a mechanical manner without first deciding the pending application that challenged the legality of the arrest, which directly contravened the mandatory directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was pointed out that the detenue was a well-known public figure who had consistently cooperated with trial proceedings in a parallel investigation and posed no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Contentions of the Respondents
The State opposed the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, arguing that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued when a person is in custody pursuant to valid judicial remand orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
It was submitted that the investigating agency made full and substantial compliance with the provisions of the BNSS. The authorities asserted that the detenue’s son was duly informed about the arrest and the scheduled time of production before the court.
The respondents highlighted that the active presence of the detenue's counsel during the initial remand proceedings conclusively proved that the family had timely and sufficient information regarding the action taken by the agency.
It was argued that the initial police remand and subsequent judicial remands were independent judicial orders. Since the petitioner failed to challenge these specific remand orders through appropriate statutory revisions or appeals, he could not bypass the legal process by directly seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
Observations of the Court
The High Court observed that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest to an arrestee, as enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), was a mandatory constitutional safeguard and not a mere empty formality. It was noted that such grounds must be meaningful, specific, and furnished in writing within the structurally prescribed timelines to enable the arrestee to effectively pursue legal remedies.
Upon a thorough review of the record, the Court observed that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) failed to produce a single document establishing that the specific, detailed grounds of arrest were ever communicated to the detenue or his family members. The Court highlighted that the agency merely informed the detenue of the offenses registered against him, fundamentally confusing the statutory "reasons for arrest" with the legally mandated "grounds of arrest."
The Court remarked, "Except a notice under Sections 47, 48 of BNSS, no other material is available to show that any written memo indicating ground of arrest was ever communicated to Dr. Mahesh Joshi or any of family member of Dr. Mahesh Joshi."
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the shifting positions taken by the ACB across its successive replies. It was observed that while the preliminary reply claimed the grounds were explained directly to the detenue, the subsequent detailed reply set up a completely new narrative involving an early morning detention at his residence and oral communication to his family, leading to an inference of fact manipulation by the investigating authorities.
The Court severely criticized the approach of the Special Judge who presided over the initial remand. It was observed that when an arrested person is produced for remand, a non-negotiable duty is cast upon the Magistrate or Judge to ascertain compliance with Article 22(1).
The Court noted with regret that the learned Special Judge kept the petitioner’s objection application pending in a negligent or deliberate manner, failing to evaluate the legality of the arrest before authorising initial police custody.
Notwithstanding the gross procedural lapses by the state authorities, the Court observed that once a court of competent jurisdiction passes subsequent, independent judicial remand orders routing an accused into custody, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained.
Relying on settled precedents of the Supreme Court in, the Court noted that a habeas corpus petition is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge detention when the custody has culminated into a judicial function through consecutive remand orders.
While dismissing the petition on the technical grounds of entertainability, the Court directed the petitioner to challenge the lower court's ultimate dismissal through appropriate statutory revisions, the Court issued strong parting observations.
"In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law as discussed hereinabove but considering the limitation as expressed in several landmark judgments as referred herein above, it is not possible for this court to consider the legality of the arrest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Special Judge has already decided application on 8th June 2026 and the petitioner is free to challenge the order as per law", the Court observed.
It highlighted a profound lack of basic understanding regarding fundamental rights among the state police and judicial officers, and consequently directed that comprehensive training be imparted to both the Police Department and the Judiciary of the State to ensure strict and meaningful compliance with the mandates of the Apex Court.
Cause Title: Rohit Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [2026:RJ-JP:23168-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Sneh Deep Khyaliya with Siddharth Sharma and Himanshu Choudhary
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General Rajesh Choudhary, Additional Government Advocate Vijay Yadav, Additional Government Advocate Rathore, Additional Government Advocate Manju Dave, Advocate Aman Kumar, Advocate Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate Neha Goyal, Advocate Tanay Goyal.