Delhi HC Rejects Habeas Plea Of Man Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Minor, Saying Family Was Present And No Prejudice Was Shownablytyped

In brief

The question

1. Whether the alleged non-compliance with Sections 36(b)(i), 48 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, rendered the petitioner’s arrest unlawful and warranted habeas corpus relief.

The court held

The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, finding no basis to declare the arrest unconstitutional or to order the petitioner’s release through habeas corpus.

It also directed

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged his arrest on 20 April 2026 in connection with FIR No. 168/2026, alleging that the arrest memo misstated the time of arrest and lacked the required family-member or respectable-locality signature, and that arrest information was not communicated to a family member in writing.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–4

The State maintained that the petitioner was apprehended only after local police assistance was obtained, that his family was present and informed, and that family members refused to sign the arrest memo.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 6–8

The Magistrate had remanded the petitioner to police custody, and the Special Judge had dismissed his bail application.

p. 3 · ¶ 7–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the alleged non-compliance with Sections 36(b)(i), 48 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, rendered the petitioner’s arrest unlawful and warranted habeas corpus relief.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–5

ii.2. Whether the petitioner established, in the writ proceedings, that the alleged procedural lapses caused prejudice sufficient to justify interference with his arrest and continued custody.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 13–14

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS were invoked as the bases for the petitioner’s habeas corpus application.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The petitioner relied on Section 36(b)(i) concerning the arrest memo, Section 48 concerning information of arrest to a relative or nominated person, and Section 62 requiring arrests to be made in accordance with the BNSS.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 3–4

The Court also relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc., 2025 INSC 979, concluding that the petitioner had placed no material establishing prejudice from the alleged procedural lapse.

p. 5 · ¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 76 Section 123 Section 36 Section 48 Section 62

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 10

04Reasoning

The Court found, on a prima facie review of the charge-sheet documents, that the arrest likely occurred after 7:00 PM, when local police assistance was granted, rather than between 5:30 PM and 6:00 PM as alleged.

p. 4 · ¶ 10

The arrest memo recorded the petitioner’s sister’s name, her husband’s name and her telephone number; given that the petitioner claimed he was at a wedding surrounded by family, the Court considered it inconceivable that his family was unaware of or uninformed about the arrest.

p. 4 · ¶ 11

The Court further noted that the Magistrate and Special Judge had considered and rejected the petitioner’s pleas, and held that the limited inquiry available in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction did not justify accepting them.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 12–14

Applying Sri Darshan, it found no material showing prejudice from the alleged procedural lapse.

p. 5 · ¶ 14

05Holding

The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, finding no basis to declare the arrest unconstitutional or to order the petitioner’s release through habeas corpus.

p. 5 · ¶ 15

No order as to costs was made.

p. 5 · ¶ 16

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF