Habeas corpus cannot challenge detention pursuant to unchallenged judicial remand orders.

The petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 13 May 2026 at Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra, in RC2212026E0010. He alleged that he was not supplied with the arrest memo or grounds of arrest and that the subsequently furnished arrest memo was defective, including an incorrect father’s name, absence of his or his family members’ signatures, and an allegedly inconsistent arrest time.

The petitioner consequently invoked Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking habeas corpus and a declaration that his arrest and continued detention were illegal and violative of Articles 21, 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution and Sections 47, 48 and 58 of the BNSS. The petitioner remained in custody pursuant to remand orders passed by the Special Judge, which were not challenged in the writ petition.

Whether the petitioner’s arrest and continued detention were illegal on account of the alleged non-supply of the arrest memo and grounds of arrest, in violation of Articles 21, 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution and Sections 47, 48 and 58 of the BNSS.

Whether the petitioner could seek habeas corpus while remaining in custody pursuant to unchallenged remand orders passed by the competent court.

Whether the alleged defects in the arrest memo and the dispute regarding whether the grounds of arrest formed part of the relied-upon or unrelied-upon documents justified interference by the High Court under Article 226.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS in examining the legality of the petitioner’s detention, alongside the statutory safeguards concerning arrest, communication of the grounds of arrest, and intimation of arrest under Sections 47, 48 and 58 of the BNSS.

The Court proceeded on the principle that continued custody pursuant to subsisting remand orders cannot ordinarily be treated as illegal in habeas corpus proceedings when those remand orders have not been challenged.

It further treated the factual findings recorded by the Special Judge and the contemporaneous record acknowledging service of the grounds of arrest as relevant evidence of compliance with the arrest safeguards.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge because the Special Judge’s order dated 15 May 2026 recorded, on the basis of the case file produced by the Investigating Officer, that the petitioner and his friend had received copies of the grounds of arrest against acknowledgement.

The Additional Sessions Judge’s order granting transit remand also recorded that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the petitioner and that his father had been informed telephonically; the petitioner had not raised a contrary grievance at that stage. In addition, the CBI produced before the High Court a copy of the grounds of arrest bearing the petitioner’s acknowledgement dated 13 May 2026.

Since the petitioner’s detention followed remand orders that were not under challenge, the Court found no basis to issue habeas corpus. It also held that the question whether the arrest documents were relied-upon or unrelied-upon documents was a matter for determination by the trial court and could not justify the present writ petition.

The writ petition and connected applications were dismissed. Costs of ₹25,000 were imposed on the petitioner, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association.