Achal Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 518 of 2026
(Along with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2025)
Achal Kumar Gupta …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Kabeer
Tiwari, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Goyal, Additional
Advocate General along with Mr.
Arvind Kumar, Additional
Government Advocate for the State-
respondents
RESERVED
Court No. - 2
HON’BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON’BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
(DELIVERED BY : J.J. MUNIR, J.)
This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,
seeking a rule nisi to produce the petitioner, and upon production, direct
his release from illegal custody. The petitioner says that his custody is
illegal, because he was summoned on the basis of a B-warrant dated
06.02.2026, when already ordered to be released by this Court and
subsequently remanded by the Magistrate vide order dated 10.02.2026

2
HABC No. 518 of 2026
passed in Case Crime No. 4 of 2026 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
1
102 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , Police Station Ganga Nagar, District
Meerut. The petitioner has challenged B-warrant dated 04.02.2026 as well
as remand order dated 10.02.2026 as a process and order made in
violation of the interim order of this Court dated 10.02.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2025, ordering the petitioner to
be released forthwith in Case Crime No. 453 of 2025, under Section
2
318(4), 338 and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Police
Station Beta 2, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The order of release from custody
in Case Crime No. 453 of 2025 was passed by this Court on ground that
the grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest memo were not specific,
rendering the arrest illegal.
2. The nutshell of the petitioner's case is that before he could be
physically released from custody, in compliance with the order dated
04.02.2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
27881 of 2025, he was got summoned by the Court of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut on a B-warrant dated
06.02.2026, and upon production, remanded to judicial custody by the
order dated 10.02.2026. The petitioner says that since he was not in lawful
custody on 06.02.2026 by dint of the order of this Court dated 04.02.2026,
he could not be summoned under a B-warrant, which is available against a
person in custody, which means lawful custody. His production through
1 ‘IPC’ for short
2 ‘BNS’ for short

3
HABC No. 518 of 2026
the aforesaid B-warrant and the subsequent remand are both illegal,
rendering his detention in Crime No. 4 of 2026 (supra) illegal from the
inception of it. The petitioner, therefore, says that he is entitled to a habeas
corpus, ordering him to be released from illegal custody.
3. We must remark that if pursuant to processes, that are so illegal that
they are void, the petitioner is in custody, which is illegal as well, the
reliefs for quashing the B-warrant and the remand order initially sought,
and subsequently added through amendment, would not at all be
necessary. The Office of a Habeas Corpus Petition is confined to
determining the legality of the detention, and, if the detention is per se
illegal, any order authorising it contrary to law would not stand in the way
of a writ of habeas corpus being issued.
4. It is further clarified at this stage that the petitioner has also said
that he was illegally produced through B warrant in the present case and
unlawfully remanded, because his arrest in the earlier case was illegal and
non est. This subsequent ground, we must remark here, cannot be the
subject matter of challenge in this petition, because, that is already sub
judice in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 27881 of 2025, where an interim
order, directing the petitioner's immediate release, has been passed.
5. We would now turn to the facts of the petitioner's case, as he has
pleaded them.

4
HABC No. 518 of 2026
6. Crime No. 453 of 2025 (supra) was registered at Police Station
Beta 2, Gautam Buddha Nagar on 30.09.2025 against the petitioner,
carrying allegations, which primarily disclose dispute of a civil nature.
The petitioner challenged the remand order dated 12.10.2025 and
13.10.2025 as well as the consequential proceedings arising out of his
illegal arrest made on 11.10.2025 in connection with Crime No. 453 of
2025 by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2025 before
this Court. This Court, after considering the petitioner's case regarding the
validity of his arrest and the consequential order of remand, held that the
arrest was illegal on account of non-furnishing of specific grounds, and
vide interim order dated 04.02.2026, while issuing notice to the
respondents, ordered as follows :
24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also the submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel
for petitioner as noted hereinabove, as an interim measure,
it is provided that petitioner shall be released forthwith
in Case Crime No. 453 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338,
336(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Beta-2, District Gautam
Budh Nagar (Greater Noida, Commissionerate Gautam Buddh
Nagar) arising out of FIR dated 30.09.2025.
7. In compliance of the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by this Court,
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar passed an
order, directing the jail authorities to release the petitioner on 07.02.2026.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Jail Superintendent,
District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 07.02.2026 in the
following terms :
/
प्रस्तुतप्रकरण में प्रार्थी में प्रार्थी प्रार्थी  अभि यु अच कुमारगुप्ताकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ताओरसे द्वारा अधिवक्ताद्वाराअधिवा
- -
प्रार्थी ना प! प्रस्तुत कर निनवे द्वारा अधिवक्तादन निकया गया है कि मिसलेनियस रिट पिटिशन संख्या निक निमस े द्वारा अधिवक्तानिनयस रिरट पिटिशन संख्या निपनिट पिटिशन संख्याशन संख्या
27881/2025
अच  कुमारगुप्ताउकामें प्रार्थी उनकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ताओरसे द्वारा अधिवक्तामाननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्यायायमें प्रार्थी बनाम
,
उत्तरप्रदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशराज्यएवंचारअन्यप्रस्तुतनिकयागयार्थी ा जि4समें प्रार्थी माननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्याया यद्वारा

5
HABC No. 518 of 2026
04.02.2026
निदनांक क5 आदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताश्ण में प्रार्थी पारिरतनिवकागयाहै कि मिसलेनियस रिट पिटिशन संख्या। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन कियेजि4सआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशकाअनुपा ननिकये द्वारा अधिवक्ता

4ाने द्वारा अधिवक्ताकानिनवे द्वारा अधिवक्तादननिकयागया। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन कियेसमर्थी नमें प्रार्थी माननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्यायायद्वारापारिरतआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशनिदनांनिकत
04.02.2026
की ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ताप्रमाभिण में प्रार्थी तप्रधितलि निपीप्रस्तुतकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्तागयीहै कि मिसलेनियस रिट पिटिशन संख्या। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये

सुनातर्थी ाअव 5कननिकयागया। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये
/ ,
प्रस्तुतप्रकरण में प्रार्थी में प्रार्थी प्रार्थी  अभि यु अच कुमारगुप्ताकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ताओरसे द्वारा अधिवक्तामाननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्यायाय
-27881/2025
इ ाहाबाद में प्रार्थी प्रस्तुत नि;निमन निमसे द्वारा अधिवक्तानिनयस रिरट पिटिशन संख्या निपनिट पिटिशन संख्याशन संख्या अच 
04.02.2026
कुमारगुप्ताबनामउत्तरप्रदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशराज्यएवंचारअन्यमें प्रार्थी निदनांक क5 माननीय
Considering the facts and
उच्च न्यायालय में बनाम न्याया य ने द्वारा अधिवक्ता आदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताश पारिरत निकया है कि मिसलेनियस रिट पिटिशन संख्या निक
circunıstances of the case and also the submissions urged
by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner as noted
hereinabove, as an interim measure, it is pro-vided that
petitioner shail be released forthwith in Case Crime No.
453 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) of B.N.S.,
Police Station Beta-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar (Greater
Noida, Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar) arising out of
FIR dated 30.09.2025.
अत< माननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्याया यके द्वारा अधिवक्ता आदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशके द्वारा अधिवक्ता अनुपानमें प्रार्थी

उ
 अभियु अच कुमारक5 प्रस्तुतप्रकरण में प्रार्थी में प्रार्थी अनिवम्बरिरहानिकया4ाये द्वारा अधिवक्ता। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन कियेआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ताएक
,
प्रधितआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशके द्वारा अधिवक्ता अनुपा नार्थी  4े द्वारा अधिवक्ता अीक्षक जि4 ाकारागारक5 प्रे द्वारा अधिवक्तानि?तह5। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन कियेलिनिपकआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताश

काअनुपा ननिकया4ानासुनिनधि@तकरें प्रार्थी । जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये
8. It is asserted by the petitioner that the said order was communicated
to the jail authorities via e-mail by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
on 07.02.2026 at 12:22 post meridiem. A copy of that communication is
annexed to the record of the petition. It is the petitioner's case that despite
the order of release, the petitioner was kept in custody on account of
addition of Sections 340(2) and 61(1) BNS. The petitioner approached the
learned Magistrate and was granted an order of release in respect of the
added sections on 09.02.2026. The subsequent order of the learned
Magistrate dated 09.02.2026, post addition of the sections directing
release, reads :
/
प्रार्थी  अभि यु अच कुमारगुप्ताके द्वारा अधिवक्ता द्वाराप्रार्थी नाप! प्रस्तुतकरकर्थी ननिकयागया
-2788/2025
निकमाननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्याया यद्वारादाण्डिBCकप्रकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ताण में प्रार्थी  रिरट पिटिशन संख्यासंख्या में प्रार्थी पारिरतआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताश
04.02.2026 /
निदनांक के द्वारा अधिवक्ता द्वाराप्रार्थी  अभि यु क5 रिरहानिकये द्वारा अधिवक्ता4ाने द्वारा अधिवक्ताहे द्वारा अधिवक्तातुआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताभिशतनिकया
340(2) 61(1)
गया। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये उपर5  आदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशमें प्रार्थी ारा एवं बीएनएसकासमावे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशनह5ने द्वारा अधिवक्ताके द्वारा अधिवक्ता

कारण में प्रार्थी अभि यु क5 रिरहानहीनिकयागया। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये
/
प्रार्थी  अभि यु के द्वारा अधिवक्ता द्वारामाननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्यायायद्वारापारिरतआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशउपर5 की ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ता

प्रधितप्रदानकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्तागयी। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये

मे द्वारा अधिवक्तारे द्वारा अधिवक्ताद्वारामाननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्याया यद्वारापारिरतआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशउपर5 काऔरसम्मानपूवक

परिरशी ननिकयागया। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये
04.02.2026
माननीयउच्च न्यायालय में बनामन्याया यद्वारापारिरतआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशउपर5 निदनांकी ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्ता में प्रार्थी
0-453/2025
अभि यु के द्वारा अधिवक्ता निवरूद्ध दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट संद4 प्रर्थी मसूचनारिरप5ट पिटिशन संख्या सं एवंरिरमाBC अंतग तारा
313 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2), 61 (2)
बीएनएसके द्वारा अधिवक्ता बावतआदे द्वारा अधिवक्ताशपारिरत

निकयागयाहै कि मिसलेनियस रिट पिटिशन संख्या। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये

6
HABC No. 518 of 2026
/ 340
अत< उपर5  तथ्यों एवं परिस्थिति में प्रार्थीएवंपरिरण्डिस्र्थी धितमें प्रार्थी प्रार्थी  अभि
यु की ओर से द्वारा अधिवक्तारिरहाई अंतर्गत धारा अंतगतारा
(2), 61 (1)
बी०एन०एस०में प्रार्थी ीरिरहानिकये द्वारा अधिवक्ता4ाने द्वारा अधिवक्ताकाआारपयाप्तहै कि मिसलेनियस रिट पिटिशन संख्या। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये

अभि यु कारिरहाई अंतर्गत धारा परवानातदनुसारसंश5धितह5करपुन< जि4ाकारागारप्रे द्वारा अधिवक्तानि?तहै कि मिसलेनियस रिट पिटिशन संख्या। जिस आदेश का अनुपालन किये
9. The petitioner asserts that notwithstanding the order dated
09.02.2026, directing release under the added sections granted by the
learned Magistrate, he was illegally kept in custody, deliberately ignoring
the orders directing immediate release made by this Court as well as the
orders of the learned Magistrate dated 07.02.2026 and 09.02.2026,
directing release in compliance with the orders of this Court dated
04.02.2026. It is pleaded that the aforesaid illegal detention, despite all
these judicial orders, was on account of collusion between the jail
authorities, the Police and the complainant, all acting in concert, knowing
well that they would not be able to hold the petitioner in jail illegally for
long.
10. An application was moved by the Police before the Court of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut, praying that
grant of a B-warrant in Case Crime No. 4 of 2026, directing the
petitioner's production from District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar before
the learned Magistrate at Meerut, treating him to be in lawful custody in
Case Crime No. 453 of 2025 in Gautam Buddha Nagar jail. The
production, pursuant to the B-warrant dated 06.02.2026 issued by the
learned Magistrate at Meerut, was directed to be made on 09.02.2026. The
petitioner, however, was not produced pursuant to the B-warrant before
the learned Magistrate at Meerut on 09.02.2026. He was produced on the
following day id est 10.02.2026. It is pleaded by the petitioner that in

7
HABC No. 518 of 2026
C.D. No. 13 dated 09.02.2026, pertaining to Crime No. 4 of 2026, the
3
Investigating Officer failed to disclose any justifiable reason for the
petitioner’s non-production on the date fixed in the B-warrant and has
merely stated that the B-warrant had been obtained and the petitioner was
to be produced on the terms of the warrant on 09.02.2026, but, could not
be produced before the learned Magistrate. There is absolutely no
explanation for the delayed production, pursuant to the warrant on the
date other than that mentioned in the said warrant.
11. A rule nisi was issued in this petition on 06.05.2026, ordering the
detenue to be produced before this Court on 12.05.2026 at 02:00 post
meridiem. He was produced before us on 12.05.2026, and the matter
directed to be taken up again on 13.05.2026. The personal presence of
Rajendra Kumar, Inspector, Special Crime Branch, Ganga Nagar, Meerut
was exempted on 13.05.2026. It may be noted that on 12.05.2026, four
affidavits were filed on behalf of the State, and on 13.05.2026, the
petitioner filed rejoinders. The parties having exchanged affidavits by
13.05.2026, the matter was heard on that date, and the petitioner was
directed to be sent back to custody wherefrom he was brought forth,
pending delivery of judgment.
12. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kabeer Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish
3 ‘IO’ for short

8
HABC No. 518 of 2026
Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Arvind
Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State.
13. It must be noticed that the facts giving rise to the cause of action in
the petition did not come to an end with what was said in the petition. The
petitioner has been remanded in a further crime, pending the present
habeas corpus petition, again through a B-warrant dated 02.05.2026
issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad vide
remand order dated 04.05.2026. The petitioner, therefore, filed a
supplementary affidavit dated 05.05.2026 to bring the aforesaid facts on
record. The relevant part of these facts are stated in paragraph no. 3 of the
supplementary affidavit last mentioned, which must be quoted for every
word of it :
3. That certain developments have taken place during the
pendency of the present writ petition, and are necessary to
be brought on record before this Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice for proper and effective adjudication
of the controversy involved in the present matter, which
are as follows: -
a. That one FIR bearing Case Crime No. 59 of 2026 U/s
318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 351(3) and 51(2) of the BNS
2023 registered at PS Crossing Republic District
Nagar (Commissionerate Ghaziabad) on 22.03.2026.
The copy of FIR dated 22.03.2026, is being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SA1 to this
affidavit.
b. That the instant Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.
518 of 2026 was filed on 27.04.2026.
The photo copy of status report of aforesaid writ
petition, is being filed herewith and marked as
Annexure No.SA2 to this affidavit.
c. That on 24.04.2026, One Devesh Kumar i.e. Sub-
Inspector in P.S. Crossing Republic where the FIR
bearing Case Crime No. 59 of 2026 is registered,
addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court No. 2, District Ghaziabad seeking
issue of a production order u/s 302 BNSS i.e. a B
Warrant.

9
HABC No. 518 of 2026
The copy of Letter dated 24.04.2026, is being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SA3 to this
affidavit.
d. That it is imperative to note here that the
Petitioner is shown to be arrested in Case Crime No.
04 of 2026, in judicial custody of District Jail
Meerut.
e. That the learned Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2 issued the production
order u/s 302 BNSS 2023 vide order dated 02.05.2026.
The photocopy of the order dated 02.05.2026 is
being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SA 4
to this affidavit.
f. That in pursuance of the aforesaid production
order, the form 'B-warrant' dated 02.05.2026 was
issued to the District Jail Superintendent, Meerut
seeking production of the Petitioner on 04.05.2026
before the court of learned CJM, Ghaziabad.
A photocopy of the B Warrant dated 02.05.2026
is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SA5
to this affidavit.
g. That in pursuance of the aforesaid, the Petitioner
was subsequently produced and remand order dated
04.05.2026 was passed by the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad
whereby a remand of 14 days under Section 187 of BNSS
was allowed up to 18.05.2026.
A photocopy of the remand order dated 04.05.2026
is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SA6
to this affidavit.
14. Therefore, the further case of the petitioner, that is pleaded, is that
the subsequent developments are part of the cause of action involved in
the petition and bear directly on the issue involved here, inasmuch as the
facts above pleaded show that during pendency of the writ petition,
another production warrant was obtained by the Police against the
petitioner, while he was in custody at Meerut, pursuant to the B-warrant
issued by the learned Magistrate at Ghaziabad. It is the petitioner's case
that a production warrant under Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
4
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a mere process for securing the attendance of a
person who is already in lawful custody, confined or detained in prison.
4 ‘BNSS’ for short

10
HABC No. 518 of 2026
The said provision does not, by itself, create an independent source of
authority to detain a man already at liberty or continue illegal
incarceration for one who has been restored to his liberty by a judicial
order. It is urged that lawful custody on the date of issue of a production
warrant is the sine qua non for acting upon such a production warrant or
order, and the production cannot be acted upon without subsisting lawful
custody. It is also said that a production warrant cannot substitute, create
or authorise continued detention in the absence of a legal and subsisting
authority for lawful custody.
15. In this case, the custody in Crime No. 453 of 2025 was declared
illegal and the petitioner ordered to be released forthwith by a Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2025. The subsequent orders of release,
numbering two, made by the learned Magistrate in compliance with the
said order clarified that the custody in the said crime was illegal because
of the this Court's order, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner would
submit. His production, therefore, through a B-warrant dated 06.02.2026,
secured in Crime No. 4 of 2026 issued by the learned Magistrate at
Meerut was without authority of law. A subsequent B-warrant was again
got issued by the learned Magistrate at Ghaziabad in Crime No. 59 of
2026, ordering the petitioner to be produced from Meerut Jail before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 at Ghaziabad, It is
illegal for the reason that the petitioner's custody became illegal at

11
HABC No. 518 of 2026
Gautam Buddha Nagar in Crime No. 453 of 2025. It is submitted that
once the custody became illegal, it cannot be legalised through successive
issue of B-warrants in different cases, unless on the date of issue of the
initial B warrant, the petitioner was in lawful custody, pursuant to a valid
order of remand. Here, the custody at Gautam Buddha Nagar became
illegal because of the order of the Division Bench dated 04.02.2026, and
thereafter, all B-warrants issued authorise unlawful detention of the
petitioner for the obvious reason that a B-warrant could not authorise
detention of a person on production by another Court in another crime,
unless he was already in lawful custody. Here, the petitioner was not in
lawful custody in Crime No. 453 of 2025 at Gautam Buddha Nagar. The
submission, therefore, is that the B-warrant issued from Meerut and his
remand there as well as the B-warrant, again issued by the Court at
Ghaziabad and his remand at Ghaziabad are both vitiated for reasons that
initial defect in the petitioner's custody at Ghaziabad that had become
unauthorised and illegal, pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of
this Court dated 04.02.2026. It is emphasized that the custody having
become illegal on the basis of a cause of action initially involved in the
writ petition, the subsequent illegal remand is a part of the same cause of
action, that is initially involved in this petition. It is on the foot of the said
submission that the petitioner seeks his custody to be declared illegal and
prays for restoration of his liberty.

12
HABC No. 518 of 2026
16. Four personal affidavits have been filed, all dated 11.05.2026.
Affidavit No. 7 of 2026 has been filed by the Jail Superintendent, District
Gautam Buddha Nagar, Affidavit No. 4 of 2026 filed by the Jail
Superintendent, District Ghaziabad, Affidavit No. 5 of 2026 filed on
behalf of the Jail Superintendent, District Meerut and the affidavit bearing
No. 6 of 2026 filed by the Station House, Police Station, Ganga Nagar,
District Meerut.
17. A second supplementary affidavit, bearing No. 8 of 2026 was filed
on 12.05.2026, bringing on record the fact that after the issue of a B-
warrant/production order dated 06.02.2026, on the foot of which the
present writ petition was filed, Inspector Rajendra Kumar Nagar, Crime
Branch, Sector Gautam Budh Nagar, Meerut, who is the IO of Crime No.
4 of 2026, resorted to harassing the petitioner's daughter, who is the
deponent on his behalf in the present habeas corpus petition. He
threatened the petitioner's daughter with false implication in cases
involving the petitioner's company. The stand in the affidavit is that the
petitioner’s daughter is a blood relative of the petitioner’s and has nothing
to do with the affairs of the company. She made a complaint regarding all
these facts on the Integrated Grievance Redressal System (IGRS) Portal
on 23.02.2025. Inspector Rajendra Kumar Nagar of the Crime Branch
Meerut called the petitioner's daughter, who is prosecuting the present
habeas corpus writ petition on her mobile number +918448159397. The

13
HABC No. 518 of 2026
details of these calls, which are four in number, are furnished in paragraph
no. 8 of the second supplementary affidavit dated 12.05.2026 as follows :
8. That from a bare perusal of the call record screenshot,
it is evident that the said inspector crime branch has
called the deponent from +91 7017974535 on the following
dates, which are as follows :-
1. 17.03.2026 at 3:12 PM.
2. 11.04.2026 at 10:13 PM.
3. 21.04.2026 at 10:48 AM.
4. 07.05.2026 at 5:42 PM.
18. There is a specific averment further made in paragraphs nos. 8 and
9 of the second supplementary affidavit dated 12.05.2026 to the following
effect :
8. That it is relevant to point out here that the last call
by the said inspector is after the orders dated 04.06.2026
and 06.05.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Court.
9. That it is also respectfully submitted that the said
Inspector has also visited the detenue for purpose of
investigation during which threats were issued against the
family of the detenue.
19. It was in view of the said affidavit that Inspector Rajendra Kumar
Nagar was summoned to the Bar by this Court, as already indicated.
20. The petitioner has filed four replies to the four affidavits filed by
the three Jail Superintendents and the Station House Officer, Police
Station Ganga Nagar, Meerut, all dated 13.05.2026. The personal affidavit
filed by the Jail Superintendent, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, is the
most detailed return on behalf of the State and brings on record most of
the State's case in support of the validity of the petitioner's detention
through successive B-warrants secured against him by the Police. A
perusal of Affidavit No. 7 of 2026 filed by the Jail Superintendent,
District Gautam Buddha Nagar shows that the petitioner was in his jail in

14
HABC No. 518 of 2026
connection with Crime No. 453 of 2025 up to 12.10.2025 under an order
of remand passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Fast Track Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar. This remand was
made under a custody warrant dated 12.10.2025, authorising the
petitioner's detention in the District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar issued by
the Court of the Magistrate last mentioined.
21. On 07.02.2026, a B-warrant was issued against the petitioner vide
order dated 06.02.2026 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 7, Meerut in Crime No. 4 of 2026. This B-warrant was received
apparently on the same date through Head Constable 1039 Kapil Singh
from District Meerut at 14:10 hours. The date of production for the
petitioner fixed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.
7, Meerut was indicated as 09.02.2026 in the B-warrant. On 07.02.2026, a
release order was received at the Gautam Budh Nagar prison in Crime No.
453 of 2025 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam
Buddha Nagar, apparently, pursuant to orders of this Court directing
release from custody forthwith. It is averred that after comparing the
release order and the custody warrant, it was found that Sections 340(2)
and 61(2) BNS were not mentioned in the release order. Due to receipt of
a B-warrant by the petitioner in another case and the error in the release
order, it was not possible to release the petitioner. It is emphasised that
08.02.2026 was a holiday, as it was a Sunday, and it was not possible to
send the release order for amendment.

15
HABC No. 518 of 2026
22. It is next said that as per the district jail records of Gautam Buddha
Nagar, summons dated 07.02.2026 were issued by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar in Crime No. 453 of 2025,
summoning him to the Court on 09.02.2026. On 09.02.2026, the
petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam
Budh Nagar, in compliance with his summons dated 07.02.2026 in Crime
No. 453 of 2025. Here, the amendment of the release order with regard to
the added sections was sought and the amended release order was
received in Crime No. 453 of 2025. It is next said that it was not possible
to send the prisoner pursuant to the B-warrant issued in Crime No. 4 of
2026 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7,
Meerut on the scheduled date in the warrant id est 09.02.2026, because of
the proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam
Buddha Nagar for correction of the release order et cetera.
23. On 09.02.2026 in the evening, after the Jail Superintendent, District
Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar received the corrected release order in Crime
No. 453 of 2025 the petitioner, Achal Kumar Gupta was released in the
said case, but detained under B-warrant in the other accumulated cases, as
averred in the Jail Superintendent's affidavit vide paragraph no. 11. On the
following day id est 10.02.2026, the petitioner, after being granted bail in
all cases in District Gautam Buddha Nagar, was sent in police custody
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, pursuant to the B-warrant

16
HABC No. 518 of 2026
for production issued in Crime No. 4 of 2026. He was then remanded to
judicial custody at Meerut and lodged in the Meerut District Jail.
24. So far as the personal affidavit filed by the District Jail
Superintendent, Ghaziabad is concerned, it is averred in paragraph no. 3
that after receiving the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court, he
inquired about the petitioner and found that there was no such man in
custody in his jail. The Jail Superintendent visited the e-prison official
website and collected information about the petitioner, who was in jail
custody at District Gautam Buddha Nagar and then transferred to District
Jail, Meerut. It is clearly averred that the petitioner is not in custody at the
Ghaziabad Jail.
25. In reply to the Jail Superintendent, Ghaziabad’s affidavit filed by
the petitioner, it is averred in paragraph no. 5 that the fact is admitted to
the limited extent that the petitioner is not in physical custody at the
District Jail, Ghaziabad. It is next averred that the Jail Superintendent,
Ghaziabad has been impleaded as a party respondent not merely on
account of the petitioner being in custody at the Ghaziabad Jail, but
because, subsequent coercive proceedings were taken in Crime No. 59 of
2026 (supra), including the issue of a production order dated 02.05.2026,
a B-warrant dated 02.05.2026 and the remand order dated 04.05.2026,
which have already been brought on record through a supplementary
affidavit filed by the petitioner.

17
HABC No. 518 of 2026
26. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the material
on record, we are of opinion that the moot question is if the petitioner,
who was in judicial custody in Crime No. 453 of 2025 at District Jail,
Gautam Buddha Nagar, when ordered to be released forthwith by this
Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No.
27881 of 2025, could be validly produced before the learned Magistrate at
Meerut, pursuant to the warrant or custody order dated 06.02.2026 issued
by the learned Magistrate at Meerut?
27. For a first, we are of clear opinion that the order dated 04.02.2026
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 27881 of 2025 rendered the petitioner's custody in Crime No.
453 of 2025 in the District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar absolutely illegal
on and from 04.02.2026 when the said order was made. The order
directed immediate release of the petitioner in Crime No. 453 of 2025,
and the petitioner could not, thereafter, be detained for a minute in the
District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar. His confinement in District Jail,
Gautam Buddha Nagar was nothing more than a physical custody or
restraint, and not any kind of lawful detention, preventive, punitive or one
pending trial. It is the respondents’ case that when the order dated
04.02.2026 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner
was remanded in some other crime at District Gautam Budh Nagar. He
could not be, therefore, held in prison at Gautam Buddha Nagar in Crime
No. 453 of 2025 for a minute, after the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by

18
HABC No. 518 of 2026
this Court. The release orders dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, directing the jail
authorities at Gautam Buddha Nagar to release the petitioner on
07.02.2026, pursuant to this Court's order, is superfluous. Likewise is the
amended order dated 09.02.2026, directing release in added Sections
340(2) and 61(1) BNS, quite apart from the fact that for an added section,
a release order cannot be flouted by the jail authorities, once release is
directed in a crime, whether pursuant to a bail order or any other kind of a
judicial order. We will allude to this aspect of the matter a little later in
this judgment.
28. What we emphasise, for the present, is that a writ of this Court
issued under Article 226 of the Constitution does not require the crutches
of a Magistrate's release order to secure the release of a prisoner from jail.
Once we direct the release of a prisoner from jail, our writ proceeds from
this Court to the jail authorities without any further process or
proceedings required to be taken by a Subordinate Court like that of a
Magistrate. The release order is required to be made when we exercise our
jurisdiction to grant bail, where a personal bond has to be furnished by the
detenue, besides sureties, on the foot of which, a release order is made by
the Magistrate. That is not the case with a writ issued under Article 226,
directing the immediate release of a prisoner from jail custody. The writ,
as already remarked, proceeds from this Court direct to the jail authorities,
as in this case and the authorities of the District Jail, Gautam Buddha

19
HABC No. 518 of 2026
Nagar were required and obliged to forthwith comply and release the
prisoner from custody. If they did not, awaiting some kind of a release
order from the Magistrate, and then, finding faults with it, because, some
sections had been added to the crime by the Police, the detenue’s custody,
like the petitioner here, is not only rendered illegal, but non est. It is well-
settled that anything done in violation of a judicial order of this Court by
any administration or executive authority is a nullity. Since the petitioner
was detained in jail by the district jail authorities, including the Jail
Superintendent, Gautam Buddha Nagar in violation of our order dated
04.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2025, his
custody, after 04.02.2026, was nothing more than illegal confinement or
detention, not referable to any lawful detention, preventive, punitive or
one pending trial or investigation.
29. This would bring us to the issue if the petitioner was in custody,
that was non est on account of our order dated 04.02.2026 aforesaid,
could he be sent in custody to the learned Magistrate at Meerut, pursuant
to the B-warrant dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut in Crime No. 4 of 2026 and produced
there in compliance with the B-warrant. For the purpose, we think that it
would be apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 301, 302 and 304
BNSS. These read :
301. In this Chapter,—
(a) "detained" includes detained under any law
providing for preventive
detention;

20
HABC No. 518 of 2026
(b) "prison" includes,—
(i) any place which has been declared by the
State Government, by general
or special order, to be a subsidiary jail;
(ii) any reformatory, Borstal institution or
other institution of a like nature.
302. (1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or
proceeding under this Sanhita, it appears to a Criminal
Court,—
(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison
should be brought before the Court for answering to a
charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any
proceedings against him; or
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to
examine such person as a witness,
the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge
of the prison to produce such person before the Court
answering to the charge or for the purpose of such
proceeding or for giving evidence.
(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made by a
Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded
to, or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison
unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.
(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under sub-
section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts
which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, render the order
necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is
submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to
countersign the order.
304. Where the person in respect of whom an order is made
under section 302—
(a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity unfit to be
removed from the prison; or
(b) is under committal for trial or under remand
pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation;
or
(c) is in custody for a period which would expire
before the expiration of the time required for
complying with the order and for taking him back to
the prison in which he is confined or detained; or
(d) is a person to whom an order made by the State
Government or the Central Government under section
303 applies,
the officer in charge of the prison shall abstain from
carrying out the Court's order and shall send to the Court
a statement of reasons for so abstaining:
Provided that where the attendance of such person is
required for giving evidence at a place not more than
twenty-five kilometres distance from the prison, the
officer in charge of the prison shall not so abstain for
the reason mentioned in clause (b).

21
HABC No. 518 of 2026
30. A conjoint perusal of Sections 301, 302 and 304 BNSS clearly
shows that in order that a Court may exercise the power to summon a
person from prison in connection with an inquiry, trial or proceedings
pending before it, the person may be confined or detained in prison, as
provided under Section 302(1)(a) BNSS, and the word “detained” is
defined under Section 301(1)(a) BNSS inconclusively to mean detention
under any law providing for preventive detention. It would, of course,
include punitive detention or one pending trial, or on committal for trial,
or pending preliminary investigation. Apparently, the detention, that
would authorise the Court to exercise powers under Section 302 BNSS,
would mean some kind of a custody in prison, referable to some lawful
authority, authorising the detention. It would ex facie not apply to a case
where a man is illegally held in custody, may be, by the Jailer of a prison,
which does not have the authority of law.
31. One of the grounds on which the Officer in charge of a prison may
refuse to carry out the order of the Court to produce a prisoner, envisaged
under Section 304(c) BNSS, is if the period of his custody authorised
would expire during the period of time required for complying with the
order of the Court to produce him and taking him back to the prison where
he is confined. This would further show that the authority of the Officer in
charge of a jail, Jailer or Jail Superintendent, by whatever name called, to
produce a person in compliance with the Court's order, is limited to the
period of time that a prisoner is in lawful detention or custody; not when

22
HABC No. 518 of 2026
his detention, though lawful at some point of time, becomes unauthorised
later was on account of period of remand expiring or an order directing
release being made.
32. There are pari materia provisions carried in The Prisoners
5
(Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 , and in particular, reference may be
made to Sections 2, 3, and 6 of the Act last mentioned. Reference in this
connection may be made to a Bench decision of this court in Dharampal
6
and another v. State of U.P. and another , where, H.N. Seth, J., speaking
for the Division Bench, held :
9. A consideration of the aforementioned provisions
indicate that the requisition under S. 3(2), Prisoners
(Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, and S. 267(1), Cr. P.C.
can be addressed to Supdt., of a District jail who is
already holding a prisoner under an authority of law. The
requisition by itself does not authorise the detention of
any person. It merely requires the officer in charge of the
prison (1) to produce the detenu before the requisitioning
Court on the date fixed by it and (2) after the purpose of
requisition is over, to take him back and to keep him in
custody in accordance with the writ or direction issued by
the Court which had authorised his detention in jail. As
laid down in S. 55, Prisons Act, 1894, during the period
the prisoner is away from the prison in pursuance of the
requisition, he would throughout be deemed to be in the
custody of the prison and would be subject to all the same
incidents as if he were actually in prison.
10. The requisitions issued by the criminal Courts in
Haryana, therefore, did not authorise the Supdt., District
Jail, Meerut, to keep the two petitioners in his custody.
They merely required the Supdt., to produce the two
petitioners before the concerned courts only if the Supdt.,
was entitled to keep them in his custody under some valid
authority. Since the various requisition orders did not
authorise the Supdt., District Jail, Meerut to keep the two
petitioners in custody and the moment the petitioners had
been admitted to bail in all the criminal cases in
connection with which their detention in District Jail,
Meerut had been authorised, the authority of the Supdt.,
District Jail, to keep the petitioners under detention came
to an end and the petitioners' detention after being
released on bail, became illegal and without authority of
law. The requisitions received from the criminal Courts at
Haryana under S. 3, Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act,
1955 or under S. 267 Cr. P.C. could not confer any valid
authority on the Supdt., of jail to keept the petitioners
5 ‘Act of 1955’ for short
6 1982 AIR All LJ 130 : 1981 SCC OnLine All 756

23
HABC No. 518 of 2026
under detention and render his custody in District Jail,
Meerut valid.
11. Moreover, S. 3, Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act,
1955 and S. 267, Cr. P.C. merely enable a criminal Court to
require the attendance of a prisoner before it on the date
specified in the requisition. If for the reasons contained
in S. 6, Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, and S.
269, Cr. P.C., an officer in charge of the prison is not
able to comply with the requisition, he has to submit a
report to the Court concerned whereupon the said
requisition comes to an end, if the presence of the
prisoner is still required by the said Court the
requisitioning Court will have to issue a fresh requisition
under S. 3, Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 and
S. 267 Cr. P.C. requiring the officer in charge of the
prison to produce the prisoner before it on some other date
to be nominated by it. It therefore, follows that after the
date mentioned in the requisition issued by the criminal
court to produce a prisoner before it expires, no further
obligation remains upon the officer in charge of the prison
to produce the prisoner before that court on any other date
till such time as a fresh requisition for the purpose is
not received by him. In the circumstances in no case can a
requisition issued by a Criminal Court under S. 3,
Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, and S. 267 Cr.
P.C., ever be construed as authorising the officer in
charge of the prison to keep a person under detention after
the date mentioned in the requisition has expired and he
has made a report to the concerned Court stating the reason
for his omission to comply with the requisition. In the
instant case, we find that the Supdt., District Jail,
Meerut, had been required by a Criminal Court at Haryana to
produce both the petitioners before it on 2nd June, 1981
and thereafter on 4th June, 1981. Those dates have passed
long time back and no further requisition has been received
for the production of the two petitioners from that Court
Another requisition was received from another Court in
Haryana requiring production of one of the petitioners
(Dharam Pal) before that Court on 16th September, 1981.
That date has also passed. At present there is no direction
by any criminal Court requiring production of the two
petitioners either under S. 3, Prisoners (Attendance in
Courts) Act, 1955, or under S. 267 Cr. P.C. In the
circumstances, it is not open to the Supdt., District Jail,
Meerut, to transfer the two petitioners to Haryana on the
basis of the requisitions which had been received by him.
Further, as the petitioners have been directed to be
released on bail in all the criminal cases in connection
with which they had been committed to the custody in
District Jail, Meerut, and release orders had been received
by the Jailor, no authority remains in him to keep the
petitioners in custody.
33. As would appear from a perusal of Section 304(c) and Section 6(d)
of the Act of 1955, even if a B-warrant was issued on 06.02.2026 by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut, the Jail
Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar was under a legal
obligation to abstain from carrying out the said warrant, because the

24
HABC No. 518 of 2026
petitioner's custody expired on 04.02.2026, that is to say, the date on
which this Court directed his immediate release from prison by an order
of the said date passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2025.
The Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar ought have
declined to carry out the B-warrant and sent to the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut statement of reasons for so
doing.
34. The question fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the
Madras High Court in K.S. Muthuramalingam v. State, rep. by the
Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Commissioner Office,
7
Coimbatore and another . The facts in K.S. Muthuramanlingam (supra)
are very striking and can best be recapitulated by reference to the relevant
part of the report, where these are set forth by their Lordships in the
following words :
2. As per the Petition allegations, the detenu Sundar alias
Raja was arrested and remanded to judicial custody 111
Crime No.16/2009, registered on the file of District Crime
Branch, Coimbatore, for offences punishable under Sections
406 and 420. I.P.C. on 29.5.2009 and he was granted bail by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. imposing
conditions to produce documents showing assets worth Rupees
One Crore and two sureties, having property worth
Rs.50,00,000/- and to jointly execute a bond for a sum of
Rs. 10,000/-. However, the said order was subsequently
modified by removing the other conditions and imposing a
condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with
two sureties each for a like sum and the said order of
modification was passed on 10.6.2010. It has also been
stated in the Petition that pursuant to the said order,
bail bond was executed on 18.6.2010 by the sureties and the
bail bond was sent to the Central Prison. Coimbatore on the
same day. However, the detenu Sundar alias Raja was not
released by the Prison Authorities even after the
submission of the bail bond as per the requirements found
in the bail order granted by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Palladam. Hence, the Petitioner has come
forward with the present Petition contending that the
7 2010 (2) MWN (Cr.) 302 (DB) : 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3648

25
HABC No. 518 of 2026
continued detention of the detenu in the Central Prison is
not authorised by law and his right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated.
necessitating this Court to exercise the power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a
Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the detenu and set
him at liberty
3. The Second Respondent has filed a counter affidavit
stating that even before the bail bond was received by the
Jail Authorities in the case in which the detenu had been
remanded to judicial custody, a P.T. Warrant was received
from the III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Porbandar, Gujarat in connection with Crime
No.2576/2009, a case registered for an offence punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; that due
to non-availability of the escort police, the detenu could
not be taken to Porbandar to be produced before the said
Court and that subsequently on intimation to the said
Court, successive P.T. Warrants came to be issued till date
and a P.T. Warrant is pending at present, directing the
production of the detenu on 23.7.2010. It has also been
stated in the Counter Affidavit that two more P.T.
Warrants, one from III Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division) and III Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bijapur and another from I Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division) and Judicial Magistrate of First Class, I Court
GADAG, in connection with C.C. Nos. 04/10 [P.C. No.
123/2009] and C.C. No.05/2010 [P.C. No. 124/2009]
respectively with requests to produce the above said detenu
before the said Courts on 23.7.2010, are pending execution
and that the same was the reason why the detenu was not
released pursuant to the execution of bail bond.
35. Upon Muthuramalingam filing a petition for habeas corpus, P.R.
Shivakumar, J., speaking for the Division Bench, held :
11. A conjoint reading of Sections 267 and 269, Cr.P.C.
will make it clear that the purpose of P.T. warrant is to
direct the production of a person who is confined or
detained in prison by a lawful order. It cannot be
interpreted to mean that the P.T. warrant shall be an
authorisation to curtail the liberty of the person and keep
him in custody till the date on which his production is
sought for. The mere pendency of a P.T. warrant shall not
be enough to keep a prisoner in the prison beyond the date
of expiry of the sentence, if he is a convict or beyond the
date on which the remand expires unless the remand is
extended by a competent Court. The pendency of a P.T.
warrant cannot be equated with a remand and the same cannot
be construed to be an authorisation for detaining a person
beyond the period for which he was remanded or committed to
undergo punishment.
12. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in Kattan @
Subramani v. State by Inspector of Police, Avadi P.S. &
Another , 1992 (1) MWN (Cri) 68 shall have bearing, though
not directly applicable. In the said case it has been
observed that the issue of a P.T. Warrant when the person
is not confined or detained in a prison in respect of any
other case is not justifiable and when such a fact is
brought to the notice of the Court which had issued P.T.

26
HABC No. 518 of 2026
Warrant, the same should be recalled. The judgment went
further to state that the recalling of the P.T. Warrant
will not bar the subsequent arrest of the person in
execution of an NBW.
13. From the above, it is quite obvious that the scope of
the P.T. Warrant cannot be enlarged by assuming the same to
be an authorisation for detaining the prisoner beyond the
period of detention. It will be effective only if his
detention is otherwise authorised as on the date on which
he is supposed to be produced before the Court issuing P.T.
Warrant.
14. The decision of the Apex Court in Ram Dass Ram v. State
of Bihar and another , AIR 1987 SC 1333 will make it
abundantly clear that the issuance of P.T. Warrant cannot
be construed to be an order of remand. A person, who has
been acquitted or granted bail in the cases in which he was
remanded to judicial custody, cannot be detained further on
the sole ground that a P.T. Warrant has been issued by
another Court. In the said case decided by the Supreme
Court, the Accused was acquitted in two Sessions cases in
which he had been remanded and even after the acquittal in
those cases he was continued to be detained in the prison
on the basis of a P.T. warrant issued for his trial in
another case. Such a detention was held to be unjustified.
The facts of the case before the Supreme Court reveal that
there was no warrant (remand order) for detaining the
detenu in jail in the third case in which P.T. Warrant was
issued or in any other case after the detenu had been
acquitted in the two cases in which he had been remanded.
15. P.T. Warrants can be classified into two categories:
(1) directing production of the person confined in
the prison on the date of hearing specified in the
order, and
(2) directing production without specifying a date
for production.
In either case, the P.T. Warrant cannot be construed to be
an authorisation to detain the person in jail beyond the
period of remand or beyond the date of expiry of the
sentence of imprisonment, as the case may be. Legal custody
on the date on which he is directed to be produced in the
sine qua non for such production. Therefore, the first
category of P.T. Warrant, namely specifying a particular
date on which production is to be made, shall be issued in
cases when production is sought for for being examined as a
witness or for answering a charge or facing other
proceedings in which he has already been granted bail. In
such cases, the prisoner shall be released if, before the
date fixed for his production, his period of sentence
expires or the period of remand comes to an end. Second
type of P.T. Warrants viz . without specifying the date for
production can be issued, in cases wherein the prisoner has
to answer the charge or face a proceeding when he was not
granted bail or bail granted was cancelled. In such cases,
the prison authority is bound to produce such person on
receipt of P.T. Warrant. Even in such cases, he cannot be
detained for being produced in the Court in compliance with
the P.T. Warrant if the sentence or remand period expires
before the receipt of P.T. Warrant.
16. Hence, we are convinced with the contention of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the continued
detention of the Petitioner beyond 19.6.2006, the date on

27
HABC No. 518 of 2026
which the bail bond was received by the Superintendent of
Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore, is illegal and this
Court has to issue a direction for his release, especially
when it is not the case of the Respondents that he has been
remanded in any other case or his continued custody is
authorised in connection with any other case.
36. In the present case, we find that the petitioner's custody was
absolutely illegal after 04.02.2026, when this Court ordered his immediate
release from prison. There was a positive obligation upon the Jail
Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar to refuse production
of the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 7, Meerut, in compliance with the B-warrant dated 06.02.2026. We
have already spoken about it.
37. We must add, as already held by good authority, that a B-warrant is
not a fresh authorisation to detain a free man. If the petitioner's detention
was unauthorised with the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam
Buddha Nagar after 04.02.2026, in consequence of our order passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27881 of 2025, he had no business to
detain the petitioner further and then produce him before the learned
Magistrate at Meerut, in compliance with the B-warrant. The petitioner’s
production before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 7, Meerut being absolutely illegal, his remand by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate aforesaid in Crime No. 4 of 2026
was also illegal.
38. It has already been noticed by us that the Jail Superintendent,
District Jail, Meerut had admitted in paragraphs nos. 11 and 12 of his
affidavit that the petitioner was released on 09.02.2026 at 16:42 hours in

28
HABC No. 518 of 2026
the evening, after receipt of the revised order of the learned Magistrate in
Crime No. 453 of 2025, but was detained under a B-warrant in the other
accumulated cases. It is said in paragraph no. 12, also already noticed, that
he was granted bail in all cases pending against him in District Gautam
Buddha Nagar and was, therefore, sent in police custody to the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut in compliance with the B-
warrant issued in Crime No. 4 of 2026. It has been noticed that a B-
warrant is not an arrest warrant to detain a free man. The petitioner could,
therefore, never have been arrested, pursuant to the B-warrant issued by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut, after he
was released in Crime No. 453 of 2025 by the Jail Superintendent,
District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The petitioner's detention, therefore,
at Gautam Buddha Nagar and the act of the Jail Superintendent, District
Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar in forwarding him in custody to the learned
Magistrate at Meerut constitutes illegal custody.
39. As already remarked that once the petitioner had not lawfully been
arrested, the learned Magistrate at Meerut had no jurisdiction to remand
him to judicial custody at Meerut, because the arrest, pursuant to the B-
warrant, was itself illegal. Assuming that the B-warrant was an authority
to arrest the petitioner, though it was not, if the petitioner had to be
arrested by dint of the B-warrant issued by the learned Magistrate at
Meerut, he had to be supplied the grounds of his arrest on 09.02.2026
after he was arrested, as the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam

29
HABC No. 518 of 2026
Buddha Nagar says, in connection with the B-warrant. In any case, the
petitioner had to be furnished the grounds of his arrest by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut on 10.02.2026.
In the absence of furnishing the grounds of arrest, the arrest itself would
be rendered illegal and the arrested person entitled to be set at liberty, for
the failure constitutes invasion of his fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution. In this regard, reference may be made to
the decision of the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of
8
Maharashtra and another , where it has been held :
46. The requirement of informing the arrested person the
grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India, 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. Thus, if a person is not informed of
the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount
to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby
curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the
arrest illegal.
….
55. This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the
intended objective of the constitutional mandate of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest
must be informed to the arrested person in each and every
case without exception and the mode of the communication of
such grounds must be in writing in the language he
understands.
….
58. It is by now settled that if the grounds of arrest
are not furnished to the arrestee in writing, this non-
compliance will result in breach of the constitutional and
statutory safeguards hence rendering the arrest and remand
illegal and the person will be entitled to be set at
liberty. The statute is silent with regard to the mode,
nature or the time and stage at which the grounds of arrest
has to be communicated. Article 22 says “as soon as may be”
which would obviously not mean prior to arrest but can be
on arrest or thereafter. The indication is as early as it
can be conveyed. There may be situations wherein it may not
be practically possible to supply such grounds of arrest to
the arrested person at the time of his arrest or
immediately.
8 (2026) 1 SCC 500

30
HABC No. 518 of 2026
59. It may so happen that in the presence of a police
officer a cognizable offence is being committed and the
factual matrix presents a tangible and imminent risk of the
suspect absconding or committing further offence(s). For
instance, in a case involving a murder being committed in
front of a police officer, it may not be possible for the
officer to provide the grounds of arrest in writing before
the arrest or forthwith on the arrest to the accused. A
rigid insistence upon informing of written ground(s) of
arrest before or at the time of effecting the arrest or
immediately thereafter may result into police officer not
being able to discharge their duty and responsibility
efficiently and effectively.
….
62. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are
already in possession of documentary material furnishing a
cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest
must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However,
in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body
or property committed in flagrante delicto , where informing
the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered
impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer
or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same
to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy
of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested
person within a reasonable time and in no event later than
two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the
Magistrate for remand proceedings. The remand papers shall
contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in
supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be
included for the information of the Magistrate.
63. The above indicated lower limit of two hours minimum
interval before the production is grounded in the
functional necessity so that the right as provided to an
arrestee under the Constitution and the statute is
safeguarded effectively. This period would ensure that the
counsel has adequate time to scrutinize the basis of arrest
and gather relevant material to defend the arrestee
proficiently and capably while opposing the remand. Any
shorter interval may render such preparation illusory,
thereby resulting in non-compliance of the constitutional
and statutory mandate. The two-hour threshold before
production for remand thus strikes a judicious balance
between safeguarding the arrestee's constitutional rights
under Article 22(1) and preserving the operational
continuity of criminal investigations.
64. In view of the above, we hold with regard to the
second issue that non-supply of grounds of arrest in
writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after
arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the grounds of non-
compliance with the provisions of Section 50CrPC (now
Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds are
supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any
case two hours prior to the production of the arrestee
before the Magistrate for remand proceedings.
65. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule
for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not
adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling
the release of the arrestee. On such release, an
application for remand or custody, if required, will be
moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same,
after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing
setting forth the Explanation for non-supply thereof within

31
HABC No. 518 of 2026
the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such an
application, the Magistrate shall decide the same
expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission
thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
40. The position of law with regard to the necessity of furnishing
reasons of arrest, when the arrest is made of a person already in jail and
produced before another Court on its B-warrant in connection with the
crime before that Court, has been subject matter of consideration in
9
Bharat Pukhraj Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra and another . The short
facts in Bharat Pukhraj Chaudhary may be noticed from the report of the
judgment, which reads :
2. The petitioner has sought a declaration that his arrest
in Crime No. 221 of 2023 registered with Bhoiwada Police
Station, Thane on October 21, 2023 under Section 8(K),
22(K) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 read with Section 18(K), 18(A) punishable under
Section 27(B) and 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 is illegal and is in gross violation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of
the Constitution of India so also Section 50 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The petitioner has also
sought quashing of the remand order dated February 11, 2024
and subsequent remand orders in the aforesaid case.
3. The facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are
as under:—
4000 bottles of various cough syrups were found in
possession of co-accused Shiraj. The possession was with an
intention to illegally market the same, which falls within
the definition of psychotropic substance. As a sequel of
above, the offence being Crime No. 221 of 2023 referred
above came to be registered. The present petitioner is
impleded as accused no. 5 and his address is shown as
resident of Pali District, Rajasthan.
4. The petitioner was already detained in Haridwar prison
located in the State of Uttarakhand. During the
investigation, direct involvement of the petitioner was
noticed in the above crime. Based on the production remand,
the petitioner was produced and shown to have been arrested
on February 11, 2024, as the transit warrant was honoured by
the Court at Haridwar on February 07, 2024. Based on the
above, the petitioner came to be arrested and produced
before the Magistrate on February 11, 2024 and was then
subjected to various remand orders.
41. In Bharat Pukhraj Chaudhary, it was observed by the Division
Bench :
9 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3515

32
HABC No. 518 of 2026
10. The petitioner who is shown to be accused no. 5 was in
the custody of Uttarakhand Police. He was arrested on
February 11, 2024, before which the production warrant was
th
prayed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 11
Court, Bhiwandi on January 30, 2024. Said production warrant
was consequentially endorsed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide order dated February 07, 2024.
11. The General Diary Entry dated February 11, 2024, i.e.
after the petitioner's custody was obtained from Haridwar
jail on February 11, 2024 mentions about the communication
of the reasons of arrest and his right to claim bail.
However such unilateral entry does not confirm
acknowledgment in writing from the accused to that effect.
The remand application dated February 11, 2024 further
speaks of similar mention of the communication of reasons of
arrest. However, we fail to understand as to what prompted
the respondents not to produce on record the written
communication served on the petitioner thereby informing him
about the grounds of arrest. Failure of the respondents to
above effect prompts this Court to draw adverse inference
against the respondents.
12. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
tried to justified the claim of communication of grounds of
arrest to the accused so also the reasons based on the
contents of the production warrant which are issued by the
th
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 11 Court,
Bhiwandi and also the production warrant granted by the
Additional Sessions Court, Haridwar, there is no iota of
material to infer that the petitioner at any point of time
was communicated in writing about the grounds of his likely
arrest or post arrest the grounds for which he was arrested.
Merely because the respondents have mentioned in its record
that the grounds of arrest or reasons of arrest were
communicated to the petitioner or any of his blood
relations, that by itself cannot be said to be in conformity
with the mandate provided under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid
observations, reliance can be placed on the findings
recorded by the Apex Court in Pankaj Biswas (supra), which
are already discussed hereinabove.
42. A similar view was expressed in another Bombay decision, that is
10
to say, Lalit Shyam Tekchandani v. State of Maharashtra and another . In
Lalit Shyam Tekchandani (supra), it was observed :
20. When we specifically asked Mr. Venegavkar about
whether grounds of arrest were communicated to him, when he
was arrested in C.R. No. 18 of 2024, he has submitted before
us that the Transfer Warrant had indicated the reasons, but
we do not find any such indication, as it is nothing but a
proforma.
In any case, the application for that purpose is
preferred to the Court and we do not find that the copy of
the same is served upon the Petitioner, so as to enable him
to be aware of the grounds of his arrest. Similar procedure
was followed as regards C.R. No. 20 of 2024 registered with
CBD Belapur, when pursuant to a Production Warrant, he came
10 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3817

33
HABC No. 518 of 2026
to be arrested and produced before the Magistrate, who
remanded him to police custody on the first date and
subsequently remanded him to judicial custody.
21. On perusal of the papers produced before us, we have
perused the Arrest/Court Surrender Form of the Petitioner in
C.R. No. 18 of 2024 and C.R. No. 20 of 2024 with respective
police stations and we find that it is as good as arrest in
the said offence and if it is so, then definitely when he is
required to be produced before the Magistrate within 24
hours of his arrest, pursuant to which remand is sought for
the purpose of investigation by the Investigating Officer,
he is entitled to know the grounds of his arrest and the law
down by the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir
Purkayastha (supra) with all force comes into play.
It is trite position of law that where an accused is
arrested in relation to an offence registered against him,
but when he is released on bail, upon the subsequent addition
of offences of serious nature against him, the investigating
agency cannot straightway arrest such person and it is
required to obtain order of arrest and custody with respect
fo sch accused from the Court, which had earlier released him
on bail.
Upon such serious offence subsequently added against the
accused after grant of bail, it is also open for him to move
an application for bail in respect of newly added offences in
the Court concerned and if this bail application for newly
added offences is rejected, then the accused can very well be
arrested. It is not, however, necessary that earlier bail
should be cancelled by the Court in every case, before
granting permission to the arrest of the accused on the basis
of the newly added offence, as the Court in exercise of power
under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) of Cr. P.C. can
direct the person who is already released on bail to be
arrested and committed to custody on addition of graver
offences.
43. Here, the case of the State, as expressed in the affidavit of the Jail
Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar, is that on
09.02.2026, at 16:42 hours, after receiving the revised release from the
learned Magistrate in Crime No. 453 of 2025, the petitioner was released
in the said case, but detained under B-warrant in the other accumulated
cases. In paragraph no. 12 of the said affidavit, it is said that on the next
day id est 10.02.2026 at 9:15 a.m., the petitioner was sent in police
custody to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Meerut,
who had issued a B-warrant of his production in Crime No. 4 of 2026.

34
HABC No. 518 of 2026
44. Thus, on this statement of facts, it is evident that the petitioner was
released from custody by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam
Buddha Nagar on 09.02.2026 at 16:42 hours and then arrested in terms of
the B-warrant. issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 7, Meerut, in relation to Crime No. 4 of 2026. He was detained at
Gautam Buddha Nagar for the whole night on 10.02.2026, and on the
following day, sent to the learned Magistrate at 9:15 a.m. in police
custody. If this position of facts were accepted, it was a fresh arrest for the
petitioner, nevertheless. He had, therefore, to be communicated with the
grounds of arrest, which, apparently in this case, he was not. Nothing has
been produced to show before us that grounds of arrest in writing, after
the petitioner's arrest in connection with the B-warrant issued by the
learned Magistrate in Crime No. 4 of 2026, were furnished him, as
required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS. The
principles, therefore, laid down by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh
Shah and the Bombay High Court in Bharat Pukhraj Chaudhary and Lalit
Shyam Tekchandani would squarely apply to vitiate the petitioner's arrest
in the present crime. When the petitioner was produced before the learned
Magistrate at Meerut, he was remanded to judicial custody in Crime No. 4
of 2026. The arrest itself was illegal for more than one reason. The
petitioner's detention in Crime No. 4 of 2026 was, therefore, illegal.
45. This principle about the petitioner's detention being illegal on
account of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest is not in derogation of the

35
HABC No. 518 of 2026
other principle that once the petitioner was no longer in custody
authorised by law at the District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar, he could not
be taken in custody pursuant to a B-warrant issued by the learned
Magistrate at Meerut, produced before that learned Magistrate and remand
to judicial custody for the case pending at Meerut. We have already dealt
with this matter in moreful detail earlier in this judgment. This mention is
just a matter of elucidating the distinction between the two different
reasons that vitiate the petitioner's custody.
46. While the petitioner was in judicial custody at the District Jail
Meerut, which, apparently, was unauthorised, a letter to the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad for the issue of a
production warrant or a B-warrant under Section 302 BNSS was
addressed by a Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Police Station Crossing
Republic, Ghaziabad. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.
2, Ghaziabad issued a production or B-warrant dated 02.05.2026 to the
Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut, seeking production of the
petitioner before him on 04.05.2026. The petitioner was produced on the
aforesaid B-warrant on 04.05.2026 before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, who remanded him to 14 days’
custody in Case Crime No. 59 of 2026. The question is if the petitioner
was illegally arrested, and a fortiori, illegally confined in the prison at
Meerut, for reasons that we have already indicated, he could not have
been produced on a B-warrant from the District Jail, Meerut, where he

36
HABC No. 518 of 2026
was not in lawful custody before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
at Ghaziabad. Again, there is nothing to show that if there was a fresh
arrest, he was informed of the grounds of arrest in writing, as required by
law. In fact, since the petitioner's production before the learned Magistrate
at Meerut, pursuant to the B-warrant was illegal, his ensuing detention in
judicial custody at Meerut and the subsequent production, pursuant to the
other B-warrant issued by the learned Magistrate at Ghaziabad and
remand in Case Crime No. 59 of 2026 are all rendered illegal, in our clear
opinion. This is a habeas corpus petition, and all we have to see is the
legality of the petitioner's custody, in which he is detained for the time
being. For determining the validity of that custody, the validity of the
detenue's arrest or successive arrest has to be looked into, which we have
done.
47. Though there are strong pleas of mala fides raised against the
respondents by the petitioner, and we may dare say, not without facts and
materials, but, it is not our province, in a habeas corpus petition, to go into
those questions. This is, after all, not a criminal writ petition, seeking to
quash the First Information Report or investigation or some proceedings
in a crime, which can be examined also on ground of mala fides. Though
we are of opinion that the petitioner’s detention after 04.02.2026 is
absolutely illegal, and we would direct his immediate release from
custody, we do not wish to say that the petitioner cannot be validly
arrested, after following the due procedure in any of the crimes registered

37
HABC No. 518 of 2026
against him, which permit arrest without warrant or on the basis of a valid
warrant of arrest issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction; but
certainly, not an arrest on the basis of a B-warrant issued against the
petitioner, while he is in no lawful custody.
48. In the circumstances, this habeas corpus writ petition succeeds and
stands allowed. The continued detention of the petitioner in Case Crime
No. 4 of 2026 at District Jail, Meerut and Case Crime No. 453 of 2025 at
District Jail, Ghaziabad are declared illegal. He shall be set at liberty
forthwith.
49. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order
to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, the Station
House Officer, Police Station Ganganagar, District Meerut, the Jail
Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar, the Jail
Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut, the Jail Superintendent, District Jail,
Ghaziabad, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad and the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Meerut, all through the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrates concerned.
(TARUN SAXENA, J.) (J.J. MUNIR, J.)
Allahabad
July 01, 2026
I. Batabyal
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable : Yes
Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad