Allahabad High Court upholds arrests of 119 alleged cyber call-centre workers, says recovery memo and phone calls to relatives substantially complied with arrest safeguards

On 30 June 2026, the police raided an alleged fraudulent cyber call centre operating from the Summit Building, Lucknow, pursuant to secret information.

The police found 119 persons, including the petitioners, working at the premises and seized numerous laptops, mobile phones, headphones, chargers, routers and other electronic equipment allegedly used for defrauding foreign nationals by impersonating U.S. government agencies and private companies.

The petitioners were formally arrested on 1 July 2026 in connection with FIR No. 0078/2026, registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

They were produced before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2 July 2026, who granted judicial remand.

The petitioners challenged their arrest and remand, alleging unlawful detention from 30 June to 2 July, non-preparation and non-supply of a valid arrest memo, failure to communicate written grounds of arrest, non-compliance with Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and mechanical consideration by the Magistrate.

Although the State produced call-detail records showing that nominated relatives or friends had been informed of the arrests, it could not demonstrate a corresponding entry in the prescribed arrest-information register or booklet.

Whether the petitioners were illegally detained for more than twenty-four hours before being formally arrested and produced before the Magistrate?

Whether the arrest was rendered illegal because the arrest memo did not itself contain the grounds of arrest or did not bear the petitioners’ signatures, when a contemporaneous recovery memo containing detailed grounds and reasons for arrest had been supplied to them?

Whether non-compliance with the record-making requirement under Section 48(3) BNSS, despite telephone communication of the arrests to nominated relatives or friends, invalidated the arrests and subsequent remand?

Whether the Magistrate’s use of a printed or pro forma remand order, without recording detailed satisfaction regarding compliance with Sections 47 and 48 BNSS, vitiated the remand?

The Court applied Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 36, 47 and 48 BNSS.

Section 36 requires preparation of an arrest memorandum, attestation by a witness and countersignature by the arrested person; Section 47 requires prompt communication of the full particulars or grounds of arrest and, where applicable, the right to bail; and Section 48 requires information regarding the arrest and place of custody to be given forthwith to a nominated relative, friend or other person, with a corresponding police-station record and judicial verification by the Magistrate.

Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Court recognised that written grounds of arrest are a mandatory constitutional safeguard, distinct from the general reasons for arrest, and ordinarily must be furnished at the earliest and, in any event, before remand proceedings.

The Court also considered Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Nitin Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., and Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P., applying the principle that substantial compliance through a contemporaneous document may suffice where the arrested person has effectively received the grounds of arrest, and that every procedural irregularity does not automatically invalidate a subsequent judicial remand.

Rule 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Rules, 2024, concerning the arrest-information booklet and register, was also considered.

The Court rejected the allegation of detention beyond twenty-four hours because the raid commenced at approximately 10:30 p.m. on 30 June, the recovery and seizure proceedings continued in view of the large number of accused and electronic devices, the FIR was registered on 1 July, and the petitioners were produced before the Magistrate on 2 July after the initial investigation was completed.

On the grounds-of-arrest issue, the Court found that the recovery memo was prepared contemporaneously with the arrest, signed by the petitioners, supplied to them, and contained detailed facts concerning the alleged cyber-fraud operation, the seized devices, the petitioners’ suspected involvement and the necessity for arrest.

Although the arrest memo itself did not contain a receipt or complete grounds of arrest, the Court treated this as a procedural irregularity because the recovery memo, read with the arrest memo, effectively communicated the grounds and reasons of arrest.

Regarding Section 48 BNSS, the Court accepted the call-detail records as proof that nominated relatives or friends had been informed before production before the Magistrate, notwithstanding the absence of a demonstrated entry in the prescribed register or booklet.

That omission was held not to invalidate the foundational arrest where the substantive purpose of the provision had been achieved.

Finally, although the Magistrate’s remand order was in a printed format and did not record detailed satisfaction regarding Sections 47 and 48, the Court held that the remand was not vitiated because the grounds of arrest had in fact been furnished and the case diary and general diary had been placed before the Magistrate.

The alleged delay between the raid and formal arrest did not establish unconstitutional detention; the contemporaneous recovery memo substantially complied with the requirement of communicating written grounds of arrest; the calls to nominated relatives or friends substantially fulfilled Section 48 BNSS; and the Magistrate’s pro forma remand order did not, in the circumstances, invalidate the remand.

The habeas corpus petition, including the prayers to quash the remand order, declare the arrests unlawful and award compensation, was therefore dismissed.

The Court clarified that its decision expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution, bail or trial.