Raj Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

Court
Delhi High Court

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010501842026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3288/2026
RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Hritik Kashyap &
Ms.Suruchi, Advs.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, Sr. Adv. &
Mr.Aman Usman, APP with
Mr.Abhinav Kumar &
Mr.Aryan Sachdeva, Advs.
along with WSI Ragini & WSI
Umang, PS Wazirabad.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHARDWAJ


NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’),
praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus,
declaring the petitioner’s arrest on 20.04.2026 in relation to FIR
No.168/2026 dated 19.04.2026, under Sections 76/123 of the BNSS
and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Wazirabad, to be
unconstitutional and in violation of Section 36(b)(i) and Section 48 of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3288/2026 Page 1 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:15:48

the BNSS, and directing the respondent to release the petitioner from
custody.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested in
relation to the above FIR from Village Pokhara, Kotwa, Bihar on
20.04.2026, between 05:30 PM and 06:00 PM. His arrest memo,
however, falsely records the time of his arrest as 08:30 PM.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in violation
of Section 36(b)(i) of the BNSS, the arrest memo of the petitioner
does not bear the signatures of any family member of the petitioner or
of any respectable member of the locality, who, admittedly, were
present at the time of arrest.
4. Placing reliance on Section 48 of the BNSS, he submits that
even the information regarding his arrest was not communicated to
any of his family members in writing. He further submits that Section
62 of the BNSS mandates that an arrest shall be made only in
accordance with the provisions of the BNSS. As the same have not
been complied with in the present case, the arrest of the petitioner is
illegal.
5. He submits that it was the duty of the learned Magistrate, at the
time of remand, to consider and satisfy himself of compliance with the
provisions of the BNSS in relation to the arrest, which has not been
done in the present case.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Lao, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondent, submits that the arrest of the petitioner was made
after following the due procedure prescribed by law. He submits that
the petitioner has been accused of having committed sexual assault on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3288/2026 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:15:48

a minor girl by intoxicating her, aged around 15 years. It was, on the
basis of CCTV footages, that the petitioner was identified and later
located in Bihar. A police team was then sent to Bihar, which
approached the concerned Police Station in Bihar for seeking
assistance, at about 05:45 PM. The assistance was granted only at
about 07:00 PM, whereafter the team proceeded to the venue from
where the petitioner was apprehended at 08:30 PM. The arrest memo
of the petitioner was drawn, and information regarding the same was
communicated to the family members of the petitioner. The family
members of the petitioner were also requested to sign the arrest memo,
however, as they refused, the arrest memo was attested by the police
officials accompanying the IO at the time of arrest. He submits that
even the name of the petitioner’s sister, the name of her husband, and
her phone number was duly recorded in the arrest memo. He submits
that, therefore, the procedures prescribed in the BNSS for arrest were
duly followed.
7. He further submits that the learned Magistrate was also satisfied
on the above, while remanding the petitioner to police custody by the
order dated 21.04.2026. The bail application filed by the petitioner
was subsequently dismissed by the learned Special Judge vide order
dated 24.09.2026.
8. He submits that the petitioner has, in fact, now filed an
application seeking bail before this Court, being Bail Application No.
4452/2026, which is pending adjudication before the learned Single
Judge of this Court and is listed on 01.12.2026.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3288/2026 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:15:48

counsels for the parties.
10. As far as the time of petitioner’s arrest is concerned, having
perused the documents filed along with the charge sheet, we are prima
facie satisfied that the arrest of the petitioner could have taken place
only after 07:00 PM, when, on a request by the Delhi Police,
assistance was granted by the local police for the arrest of the
petitioner and the police party left the police station. The submission
of the petitioner that he was arrested between 05:30 PM and 06:00 PM
on 20.04.2026, therefore, does not prima facie appear to be correct.
11. As far as information to the family members regarding the
arrest is concerned, the arrest memo itself records the name of the
sister of the petitioner, the name of her husband, as also her mobile
number. This information could have been available with the IO only
if the sister was personally present at the spot. In fact, it is the own
case of the petitioner that, at the time of arrest, he was attending a
wedding function and was surrounded by his own family members. It
is, therefore, prima facie inconceivable to even suggest that the family
members of the petitioner were not aware or not informed of his
arrest. These pleas appear to be taken only to somehow scuttle the
regular process for obtaining bail.
12. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Special Judge
have also examined these pleas of the petitioner and have rejected the
same. Instead of challenging this order, the petitioner has approached
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Given the limited scope of inquiry that can be conducted in
such extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction on the basis of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3288/2026 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:15:48

affidavits of the parties, we are not inclined to accept the above
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. Being guided by the judgment of the Supreme Cout in State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc., 2025 INSC 979, we are of the opinion
that no material has been placed on record to establish that any
prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to the alleged procedural
lapse.
15. We, accordingly, find no merit in the present petition. The same
is dismissed.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.



NAVIN CHAWLA, J


ARUN BHARDWAJ, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ rv/Yg
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3288/2026 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:15:48