Production Warrant Cannot Authorize Detention of a Person Not in Lawful Custody Over Whom Release is Ordered

The petitioner was in judicial custody at District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar, in connection with Case Crime No. 453 of 2025.

On 04.02.2026, the High Court held his arrest illegal and ordered his "immediate release".

Despite this, jail authorities delayed his physical release, citing technical errors in the Magistrate's release order regarding added sections of the BNS.

During this period of illegal detention, the Police obtained a 'B-warrant' (production warrant) from a Meerut Court on 06.02.2026 for a separate case (Crime No. 4 of 2026).

Instead of being set free, the petitioner was shifted from one jail to another (Meerut and later Ghaziabad) via successive B-warrants and subsequent remand orders.

The petitioner filed this Habeas Corpus petition alleging that since his primary detention was declared illegal on 04.02.2026, all subsequent B-warrants and remands were void ab initio.

1. Whether a production warrant (B-warrant) under Section 302 of the BNSS can be validly executed against a person whose current detention has already been declared illegal by a High Court.

2. Whether the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest to a person "arrested" via a B-warrant violates the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Sections 301, 302, and 304 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which govern the production of persons "confined or detained in a prison".

Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS regarding the mandatory communication of grounds of arrest.

Precedent established in Dharampal v. State of U.P., that a B-warrant does not authorize detention but merely requires production of a person already in lawful custody.

Precedent established in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates furnishing written grounds of arrest even in cases of "transfers" or production remands.

The Court reasoned that a writ of Habeas Corpus issued under Article 226 operates immediately; jail authorities cannot delay release awaiting a Magistrate’s "release order" or technical corrections.

Once the High Court ordered release on 04.02.2026, the petitioner’s status was that of a "free man" in the eyes of the law, making his continued stay in jail non est.

Consequently, the B-warrants issued by the Meerut and Ghaziabad courts were invalid because Section 302 BNSS applies only to persons in lawful confinement.

A B-warrant is not a substitute for a fresh arrest warrant for a person at liberty.

The court found that even if the B-warrant were treated as a fresh arrest, the state failed to provide the petitioner with written grounds of arrest as mandated by the Supreme Court, thereby violating the fundamental rights under Article 22(1).

The petition was allowed; the Court declared the detention in Case Crime No. 4 of 2026 (Meerut) and Case Crime No. 59 of 2026 (Ghaziabad) as illegal and directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.