Bihar HC Rejects Father’s Bid To Free Son, Finding He Knew The Allegations And Had Counsel Oppose Remand Despite Claim Arrest Grounds Weren’t Given In Writing

The petitioner sought habeas corpus and related reliefs concerning his son, Divya Prakash, who had been arrested on 5 June 2026 in connection with FIR No. 27/2026 under Sections 108/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The arrest followed issuance of a non-bailable warrant; the State also stated that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC had been initiated.

The son had previously sought anticipatory bail and applied for recall of the warrant. He was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, where his lawyer appeared by video conference and opposed remand; the Magistrate remanded him to custody on 6 June 2026.

After his regular-bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court, he applied to the High Court for bail. The petitioner then filed this habeas corpus petition, alleging, among other things, that written grounds of arrest had not been served.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution, read with Article 21, protects an arrested person’s right to be informed of the grounds of arrest; Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, address communication of those grounds and arrest information.

The Court considered *Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India*, *Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra* and *Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India*, which emphasise the constitutional safeguard and the importance of communicating grounds of arrest. It also applied *State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan* and *State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram*: an alleged procedural defect in communicating grounds does not, by itself, invalidate custody or entitle an accused to release where no demonstrable prejudice is shown; the inquiry is prejudice-oriented.

In discussing *Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh*, the Court noted that the grounds must sufficiently enable the arrested person to understand why they were arrested, while the mode of communication must be assessed in the circumstances.

The Court found that the detenue was a named accused, had sought anticipatory bail, knew of the non-bailable warrant and had applied to have it recalled. His lawyer appeared at the remand hearing and opposed remand. These circumstances showed that he understood the accusation and had an opportunity to contest his custody; the Court found no material demonstrating prejudice from the alleged failure to serve written grounds.

Applying the prejudice-oriented approach in *Sri Darshan* and *Jhabra Ram*, it concluded that the alleged procedural lapse did not, on these facts, make the remand or continued detention unlawful.

The writ petition was dismissed; the Court also directed that the previously imposed cost of ₹5,000 be deposited within two weeks, failing which recovery steps could be taken in accordance with law.