Police Inspector Who Complied With BNSS Notice Unconditionally Freed After Madras HC Finds No Record Of Arrest Reasons

The petitioner, Innisai, sought habeas corpus relief for her husband, Sugumaran, an Inspector of Police.

After a complaint concerning a partnership dispute was transferred to the CB-CID, the investigation was altered to include allegations against Sugumaran, who was arrested on 9 October 2026 and remanded to custody.

He had appeared in response to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petitioner alleged that the arrest was made without the reasons required by Section 35(5) BNSS and that the grounds of arrest had not been served on Sugumaran.

The Magistrate dismissed his bail application; the petitioner then filed this habeas corpus petition.

Under Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, a habeas corpus petition lies where remand is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, or passed mechanically; V. Senthil Balaji v. State recognises the remedy where detention violates a statutory mandate.

Section 35(5) BNSS provides that a person who complies and continues to comply with a notice under Section 35(3) shall not be arrested for the relevant offence unless the police officer forms and records reasons for arrest.

Section 35(1)(b) BNSS requires the statutory conditions for arrest in qualifying cognizable offences to be met, with reasons recorded in writing; the Court referred to Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar on scrutiny of those conditions.

Article 22(1) requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest; relying on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that failure to comply renders the arrest and remand, and subsequent proceedings, illegal.

Sugumaran had appeared in response to the Section 35(3) notice, bringing his arrest within the protection of Section 35(5).

The respondents produced no material showing that the investigating officer had recorded the reasons required to justify arrest despite that compliance; the Court considered this sufficient to invalidate the arrest and remand.

The Court also found no evidence that the grounds of arrest had been served.

It rejected the Magistrate’s reasoning that service could be dispensed with because Sugumaran was a police officer and his wife was a lawyer, holding that constitutional protections cannot be waived on that basis.

The Court expressly confined its decision to the legality of the arrest and remand and did not determine the merits of the allegations or whether the FIR should be quashed.

It allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed Sugumaran’s immediate, unconditional release, clarifying that the relief was not bail and that the merits of the allegations remained undecided.