Patna High Court
LALLAN KUMAR YADAVversusThe State of Bihar, through its additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove an illegal arrest and had acquiesced by not challenging the remand, rendering the detention lawful.
Summary
The petitioner, Lallan Kumar Yadav, claimed that he was illegally detained by Sonepur Police from 30 July 2020 to 1 August 2020 without an FIR or compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. He alleged that the police failed to issue a Section 41A notice and that the arrest and subsequent judicial remand were unlawful, seeking compensation. The State contended that the petitioner was only summoned on 30 July, the FIR was lodged on 1 August, and the arrest occurred thereafter, after which he was produced before a Judicial Magistrate, remanded, and later released on bail. The High Court found no record of an arrest on 30 July and held that the petitioner never challenged the arrest or remand in any court, instead obtaining bail, which amounted to acquiescence to the legality of his detention. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court noted the police and magistrate’s apparent non‑compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was illegally detained from 30 July 2020 to 1 August 2020.
- Whether the arrest and judicial remand complied with the directions of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Section 41/41A CrPC.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for alleged illegal detention.
- Whether the petition is maintainable given the petitioner’s acquiescence by not challenging the arrest/remand.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41, 41A
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 506
Subjects
- illegal detention
- arrest
- Section 41 CrPC
- Section 41A CrPC
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- bail
- compensation
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1049 of 2021
======================================================
Lallan Kumar Yadav Son of Dashrath Prasad Yadav Resident of Village -
Khemi Chak, P.O. - Sonepur, P.S. - Sonepur, district - Saran, Pin Code-
841101
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through its additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Nehru Marg, Patna -800023
3. The Deputy Inspector General, Saran Range, Chhapra.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chhapra.
5. The then Inspector Cum SHO, Sonepur Police Station at Chhapra, Saran,
namely Akil Ahmed at present posted in District - Bhagalpur,
6. The then Assistant Sub- Inspector, Sonepur Police Station at Chhapra, Saran,
namely Zaffarudin presently posted at District - Gopalganj,
7. Jitendra Kumar S/o Gopal Prasad R/o Village- Sahpur Diyara, PS-Sonepur,
District-Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Md. Nasrul Huda Khan, SC-1
Md. Fazle Karim, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-02-2026
The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner for declaration of detention of the petitioner by
Sonepur Police Station for three days i.e. from 30.07.2020 to
01.08.2020 as illegal. The petitioner is further seeking
compensation on account of illegal detention.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
2/11
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
without any FIR or any legal justification, the petitioner was
kept in illegal custody for three days i.e. from 30.07.2020 to
01.08.2020 by Sonepur Police Station. He further submits that
the FIR bearing Sonepur P.S. Case No. 574 of 2020 was
registered on 01.08.2020, but the petitioner was taken to custody
since 30.07.2020 itself and thereafter, he was produced before
learned Judicial Magistrate on 02.08.2020 for judicial remand
and he was remanded to judicial custody in Sonepur P.S. Case
No. 574 of 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
for regular bail and he got regular bail on 13.08.2020 by the
Court of learned C.J.M., Saran at Chhapra in Sonepur P.S. Case
No. 574 of 2020 and ultimately he got released on 17.08.2020
after furnishing of bail bonds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that as such, there was no reason to take the petitioner into
custody prior to lodging of FIR bearing Sonepur P.S. Case No.
574 of 2020 dated 01.08.2020 and hence, it is illegal detention.
Moreover, the FIR bearing Sonepur P.S. Case No. 574 of 2020
was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
3/11
323, 379, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in
which maximum punishment provided was three years in which
the police was not required to arrest the petitioner right away.
The police had to follow the guidelines as provided by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, as
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, but the concerned police has not
complied with the directions.
5. He further submits that no reason has been
provided in the case diary regarding the arrest of the petitioner
and neither any reason has been given for immediate arrest, nor
has the police issued any notice under Section 41A Cr.PC to the
petitioner. As such, the arrest of the petitioner was again illegal
and even learned Judicial Magistrate has not complied with the
direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, because in the given facts
and circumstances of the case, he was required to see whether
the police has complied with the direction of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as given in Arnesh Kumar Case (supra) before arresting
the petitioner for offence punishable up to seven years of
imprisonment and as such, even remand is illegal.
6. However, learned counsel for the State submits that
there is no illegality or infirmity in the arrest of the petitioner.
The petitioner was not arrested on 30.07.2020. He was only
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
4/11
summoned for inquiry in regard to written report which led to
lodging of FIR bearing Sonepur P.S. Case No. 574 of 2020. He
was arrested only after lodging of FIR on 01.08.2020 and on the
very next day, he was produced before learned Judicial
Magistrate for judicial remand and thereafter, he was remanded
to judicial custody.
7. He further submits that the order of judicial remand
was never challenged by the petitioner before any higher Court,
either in writ jurisdiction or otherwise and in stead, he filed an
application for regular bail and in fact, he was granted regular
bail and got released on 17.08.2020 after furnishing of bail
bonds. As such, the arrest of the petitioner is legal and for want
of any challenge against the remand order, passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, the legal nature of the arrest becomes
absolute. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner
that the arrest is illegal and hence, there is no reason to grant
any compensation to him for claiming that his arrest was illegal.
8. He further submits that prior to this writ petition,
the petitioner has also moved Bihar Human Rights Commission
and on direction of Bihar Human Rights Commission, the
concerned Superintendent of Police got inquiry conducted in
regard to the allegation and he found that there was nothing
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
5/11
illegal. The petitioner was arrested on 01.08.2020, after lodging
of FIR and he was produced before learned Judicial Magistrate
only after one day for remand and judicial custody and
accordingly, he was remanded to judicial custody by learned
Judicial Magistrate. As such, there is nothing on record to show
that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and hence, there is no
question of any compensation to the petitioner.
9. I considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and perused the material on record.
10. I find that there is nothing on record to show that
the petitioner was arrested on 30.07.2020. The petitioner was
arrested in Sonepur P.S. Case No. 574 of 2020 on 01.08.2020
and he was produced before learned Judicial Magistrate on
02.08.2020 and thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody
by learned Judicial Magistrate. It appears that prior to
01.08.2020, on 30.07.2020 the petitioner was summoned for
inquiry in regard to the written report leading to lodging of FIR
bearing Sonepur P.S. Case No. 574 of 2020.
11. It also transpires that the petitioner never
challenged the arrest and the remand before the High Court or
any other Court. In stead, the petitioner filed an application for
regular bail and he got bail and released subsequently. As such,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
6/11
for want of setting aside the remand order, passed by the
competent Criminal Court, arrest becomes legal and it is
absolute for want of any challenge to the higher Court and
getting it set aside. Though it appears from the perusal of the
case diary that the police officer before arresting the petitioner
in Sonepur P.S. Case No. 574 of 2020, he has not complied with
the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court. But this non-
compliance of direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court as given in
Arnesh Kumar Case (supra) should have been raised just after
arrest or just after remand, but he has not chosen to prefer any
judicial proceeding against this illegal arrest or the illegal
remand to the Writ Court. Instead, the petitioner preferred an
application for regular bail which amounts to acquiescence of
the petitioner that his detention was legal. Thereafter, it does not
lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise illegality of the arrest.
12. Hence, timing of challenging the arrest or remand
subsequently is wrong. Had the petitioner come prior to filing of
regular bail petition and just after remand by learned Judicial
Magistrate, the Writ Court could have looked into the
compliance of direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court by the police
or even learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand. But
now that time has passed and this is not the stage to look into
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
7/11
the compliance with the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Arnesh Kumar Case (supra), either by the police or by the
learned Judicial Magistrate. It is too late to look into such plea
taken by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
14. However, dismissal of the present writ petition
does not mean that this Court is approving the conduct of the
police officers as well as learned Judicial Magistrate. The
perusal of the case diary shows that the concerned police officer
is totally oblivious of the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
given in Arnesh Kumar Case (supra). Even, unfortunately,
learned Judicial Magistrate appears to be ignorant about the
guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar
Case (supra) to be followed at the time of remand. Learned
Judicial Magistrate is equally duty bound to look into the
compliance by the police officer at the time of arrest in a case in
which maximum punishment provided is seven years and if the
Judicial Magistrate finds no compliance, then the Judicial
Magistrate is duty bound to reject the application of the police
for remand of the arrestee to judicial custody or otherwise. But
this duty has not been done by the Judicial Magistrate. If the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
8/11
Judicial Magistrate could have perused the case diary before
passing remand order, he could have rejected, because there is
no whisper regarding compliance of the direction of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as given in Arnesh Kumar Case (supra).
15. Here, it would be pertinent to refer to the
directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar
Case (supra) which reads as follows:
"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that
police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily
and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and
mechanically. In order to ensure what we have
observed above, we give the following directions:
11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police
officers not to automatically arrest when a case under
Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest under the
parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41
CrPC;
11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list
containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)
(b)(ii);
11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list
duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which
necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the
accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the
accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police
officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its
satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be
forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the
date of the institution of the case with a copy to the
Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons
to be recorded in writing;
11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A
CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from
the date of institution of the case, which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district
for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
9/11
11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid
shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned
liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable
to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted
before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons
as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall
be liable for departmental action by the appropriate
High Court.
12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall
not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC or
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in
hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may be less than
seven years or which may extend to seven years,
whether with or without fine."
16. The direction given by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar case (supra) has been reiterated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand as
reported in (2023) 8 SCC 632. The direction reads as follows:
"16. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing
the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore,
cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. Before parting, the
Court would direct all the courts seized of proceedings to
strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and reiterate the directions
contained thereunder, as well as other directions.
16.1.(I) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273
“11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that
police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily
and Magistrates do not authorise detention casually
and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have
observed above, we give the following directions:
11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police
officers not to automatically arrest when a case under
Section 498-AIPC is registered but to satisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest under the
parameters laid down above flowing from Section
41CrPC;
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
10/11
11.2. All police officers be provided with a checklist
containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)
(b)(ii);
11.3. The police officer shall forward the checklist duly
filled and furnish the reasons and materials which
necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the
accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the
accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police
officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its
satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be
forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the
date of the institution of the case with a copy to the
Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons
to be recorded in writing;
11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-
ACrPC be served on the accused within two weeks
from the date of institution of the case, which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district
for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid
shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned
liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable
to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted
before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons
as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall
be liable for departmental action by the appropriate
High Court.
12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not
only apply to the cases under Section 498-AIPC or
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand,
but also such cases where offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven
years or which may extend to seven years, whether with
or without fine.”
16.2.(II) The High Court shall frame the above directions
in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed
by the Sessions Courts and all other and criminal courts
dealing with various offences.
16.3.(III) Likewise, the Director General of Police in all
States shall ensure that strict instructions in terms of the
above directions are issued. Both the High Courts and the
DGPs of all States shall ensure that such guidelines and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1049 of 2021 dt.13-02-2026
11/11
Directives/Departmental Circulars are issued for guidance
of all lower courts and police authorities in each State
within eight weeks from today.
16.4.(IV) Affidavits of compliance shall be filed before
this Court within ten weeks by all the States and High
Courts, through their Registrars."
17. Learned Registrar General is directed to circulate
a copy of this order amongst the Judicial Officers. He is also
directed to send a copy of this order to Director General of
Police, Bihar to circulate it amongst the police officials, because
despite several directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court as well as guidelines of the Government of Bihar, the
Police Officers are not complying with the direction as issued
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Case (supra) at
the time of arrest in a case maximum imprisonment provided up
to seven years.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Shoaib/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date 18.02.2026
Checking your session…