Failure to challenge arrest or remand before seeking regular bail constitutes acquiescence to legal detention.

The petitioners, family members of Petitioner No. 2 (Rajiv Kumar), sought a writ of mandamus for departmental and contempt proceedings against police officials and a Judicial Magistrate.

The dispute arose from Amarpur P.S. Case No. 284 of 2021, initially filed under Sections 341, 323, and 504 of the IPC.

Petitioner No. 2 was arrested on 22.06.2021, and Section 498A IPC was subsequently added on 23.06.2021.

The petitioners alleged that since the offences carried a maximum punishment of less than seven years, the arrest was made without complying with the mandatory procedures under Section 41A of the CrPC.

However, Petitioner No. 2 did not challenge the arrest or the subsequent remand order at the time; instead, he applied for and was granted regular bail by the High Court on 18.01.2022.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus for departmental or contempt proceedings can be issued for non-compliance with arrest guidelines after the accused has already acquiesced to the legality of the detention by seeking regular bail.

2. Whether the failure of the police to serve a notice under Section 41A CrPC and the Magistrate’s failure to record reasons for remand as per the Arnesh Kumar guidelines render the officers liable for action after the remand remains unchallenged.

The court primarily applied the mandatory guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, which prohibit automatic arrests in cases punishable by seven years or less and require Magistrates to record satisfaction before authorizing detention.

It further relied on Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand (2023) 8 SCC 632, which reiterated these safeguards.

Additionally, the court applied the principle of acquiescence as established in the coordinate bench decision of Lallan Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar [2026 (2) BLJ 414], holding that seeking regular bail instead of challenging the remand order validates the legality of the custody for procedural purposes.

The Court reasoned that while the police and the Judicial Magistrate appeared "totally oblivious" to the Arnesh Kumar guidelines during the arrest and remand process,

the timing of the petitioners' challenge was fatal to their plea.

By opting to file for regular bail and securing release without ever challenging the initial arrest or the remand order in a higher court, the petitioners effectively acquiesced to the legality of the detention.

The Court noted that the remand order remains absolute and legal so long as it stands unchallenged.

Therefore, the Court held it was "too late" to look into the non-compliance of procedural safeguards once the petitioner had transitioned from challenging the detention's legality to seeking a discretionary remedy like bail.

However, the Court explicitly stated that the dismissal did not constitute approval of the conduct of the police or the Magistrate.

The Court issued a directive to the Registrar General to circulate the order to all Judicial Officers and the Director General of Police (Bihar) to ensure future compliance with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines regarding arrests and remands.