Patna High Court
Manjoo DeviversusThe State of Bihar Through the Principal Secertary, Deptt. of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the order of judicial custody was valid, cannot be challenged by a writ of habeas corpus, and therefore the petition was dismissed.
Summary
Manjoo Devi filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that her husband, Lal Babu Rajak, was illegally detained in Special Central Jail after being arrested under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She claimed violations of Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution because the grounds of arrest were not provided promptly and he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, and that an unauthorized clerk had authorized his judicial custody without recording reasons. The High Court examined the trap operation, the FIR, and the documents presented before the Special Judge, finding that the custody was authorized by the Special Judge and not by an illegal clerk. The Court relied on precedents that orders of remand by a judicial magistrate cannot be challenged by a writ of habeas corpus and must be reviewed through appropriate revision. Since the husband had already been released on bail and no illegal detention was established, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner’s husband violated Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the order of judicial custody/remand can be challenged and set aside by a writ of habeas corpus.
- Whether the alleged authorization of custody by an office clerk renders the detention illegal.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 22(1), Article 22(2)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7(a)
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- illegal detention
- Article 22
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- judicial custody
- remand
- bail
- trap operation
- vigilance investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1174 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2026 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Manjoo Devi W/o Lal Babu Rajak Resident of Sipahi Tola Baxa Ghat Road,
Gali No. 3, P.S- K.Hat, District- Purnea. Bihar 854301
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Home, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Directorate General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Vigilance Deptt., Patna, Bihar.
4. Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance Department.
5. D.G. Vigilance Investigation Bureau
6. Deputy Superintendent of Police cum Investigator, Vigilance Investigation
Bureau
7. Superintendent Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
8. The SHO, Sadar P.S. Purnea, Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sujit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.G.
Ms. Priya Gupta, AC to AG
Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
4 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Advocate General for the State and Mr. Anil Singh, learned
counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
2. This writ application seems to have been preferred
for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. In
paragraph ‘1’ of the writ application, this Court finds the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
2/11
following statements:-
“1. That this criminal writ application is being
filed for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus,
directions especially against respondent 3 the
Vigilance Department, Patna Bihar and
respondent 5 D.G. Vigilance Investigation Bureau
for the illegal detention of the petitioner's husband
in Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur. The petitioner's
husband has been arrested in connection with the
Vigilance P.S. Patna FIR No. 45/2026 in a case
instituted under section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988. The arrest of the petitioner's
husband is violative of article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India for the failure to inform the
grounds of arrest in writing as soon as may be and
the right to consult an advocate of his choice. The
grounds of arrest in writing were handed over to
the petitioner's husband after nearly eight hours of
the arrest and that too after a continuous
insistence by the family members of the
petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband was
also not produced before the nearest magistrate
within 24 hours defeating the constitutional
mandate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of
India. Furthermore, the effective production of the
petitioner's husband happened before the office
clerk where the entire offense, pre-trap and post
trap memorandum was read by the trap laying
officer. The magistrate (Additional District and
Sessions Judge II cum Special Judge Vigilance)
has not ascertained if the arrest of the petitioner's
husband is in compliance with article 22 of the
Constitution of India. Above all, the magistrate
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
3/11
(Additional District and Sessions Judge II cum
Special Judge Vigilance) has illegally authorized
the office clerk to sign on the custody application
and grant custody. No reasons have been recorded
for the grant of custody ostensibly because the
entire production happened before the office
clerk.”
3. In the prayer portion of the writ application, the
following relief has been prayed for:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of
habeas corpus or any other relief(s) which the
Hon’ble Court deems fit to release the
petitioner’s husband forthwith from illegal
detention.”
4. It appears from the narration of facts that pursuant
to a complaint made by one Suraj Sahni at the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, a first information report giving rise to
FIR No. 45/2026 dated 16.04.2026 was registered. Allegation
against the petitioner’s husband is that he had demanded a sum
of Rs.50,000/- for getting a work done regarding the land of the
complainant which is situated in Circle- Purnia East, Mauja-
Hasda, Khata No. 232, Khesra No. 770. On receipt of the
complaint, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau decided to
arrange a pre-trap procedure, a Constable was designated to be
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
4/11
the trap/shadow witness to verify whether the demand was made
by the petitioner’s husband. On receipt of information, the
complainant was fitted with an audio recorder to record the
conversation between the complainant and the petitioner’s
husband. A trap was led down in the premises of the Circle
Office, Purnia, East. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband
directed the complainant to give the money to another co-
accused who worked as a private worker in the Circle Office. In
the post-trap memorandum, the tainted money has been
recovered from the purse of the co-accused.
5. The petitioner submits that the judicial custody of
the petitioner’s husband was wholly illegal as according to him,
the custody application of the petitioner’s husband had been
signed by the Office Clerk, illegally authorized by the
Magistrate (Additional District and Sessions Judge-II-cum-
Special Judge, Vigilance). It is submitted that this petition was
raised during the bail hearing of the petitioner’s husband but this
issue was not taken up for consideration.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Magistrate who authorized the judicial custody of the husband
of the petitioner failed to record reasons for grant of judicial
custody. Thus, it was not effective production before the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
5/11
Magistrate. Violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and
Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 has been alleged.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
doubt, the petitioner’s husband has already been released by
virtue of bail granted to him by a court of competent jurisdiction
but this Court is required to adjudicate at this stage the
contention of the petitioner that the arrest of her husband was
illegal.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Vigilance Investigation Bureau which has been sworn by the
Inspector of Police-cum-Investigator. It is stated in the counter
affidavit that the FIR was registered on the basis of a
verification report and the complaint itself against Sri Lal Babu
Rajak then posted at Circle Office, Purnea East Circle, District-
Purnea under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (as amended up to date). The facts leading to the trap have
been stated in the counter affidavit. It is stated that on the
direction of the accused Lal Babu Rajak, the co-accused Smt.
Rumi Kundu (personal assistant of the accused) accepted the
bribe money from Smt. Lalita Devi, wife of the complainant
who was also present at the spot. The accused persons were
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
6/11
formally arrested at 20:30 Hours on 17.04.2026. All the
procedures of search and seizure were video-graphed.
Thereafter, the post-trap memorandum was drawn up which was
signed by the independent witnesses and the complainant. A
copy of the post-trap memorandum was provided to each of the
accused persons at Circuit House, Purnia and information was
given to their relatives via phone and information was also
given to the local police station.
9. It is further stated that in course of investigation,
after seeking permission from the learned Special Court
(Vigilance), Bhagalpur, the experts of Vigilance Investigation
Bureau, Patna went to Central Jail, Bhagalpur to take voice
sample of the accused Lal Babu Rajak in order to match his
voice with the voice captured in recorded conversation, but the
accused deliberately refused in writing to give his voice sample.
Prosecution sanction against the accused has also been accorded
and a chargesheet has been filed against the accused Lal Babu
Rajak and the co-accused Smt. Rumi Kundu.
10. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau has further submitted that the husband of the petitioner
has been granted bail by this Court on 23 rd June, 2026 in
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39855 of 2026. The fact that the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
7/11
husband of the petitioner has already been released on bail has
been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. The fact that the husband of the petitioner was
arrested by police after verification of the complaint followed
by the trap and then he was produced before the learned Special
Court has not been denied. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that an unauthorized Clerk had authorized
the detention of the husband of the petitioner but on perusal of
Annexure ‘P/1’ to the writ application, we find that the husband
of the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge
with a number of documents which are enlisted from Serial Nos.
1 to 11 in the forwarding letter issued under signature of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-Investigating Officer,
Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna. In the margin portion of
the said forwarding letter, the learned Special Judge seems to
have endorsed ‘Permitted’ after recording ‘Seen’. The
ordersheet of the court of that day has not been produced before
this Court but this much is evident on perusal of Annexure ‘P/1’
that the detention has not been authorized by any illegal clerk as
claimed by the petitioner. The documents produced before the
learned Special Judge includes the verification report and the
audio recordings etc. There is no contest by the petitioner that
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
8/11
these documents which are shown in the forwarding letter form
part of the records placed before the learned Special Judge for
purpose of the judicial custody of the husband of the petitioner.
In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the judicial custody
of the husband of the petitioner was authorized by an illegal
person. The submission is liable to be rejected.
12. It is also a matter of record that the order
remanding the husband of the petitioner to judicial custody has
not been challenged by the petitioner or her husband.
13. In the case of Shikha Kumari Vs. The State of
Bihar and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Pat 4605an
Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider as to
whether an order of remand may be challenged by way of a writ
of Habeas Corpus. The Hon’ble Full Bench opined in its
judgment as under:-
“68. We, accordingly, sum up our conclusions in
respect of the first three issues for determination as
follows:—
Question No. 1 : “Whether, in a petition for
issuance of writ of habeas corpus, an order passed
by a Magistrate could be assailed and set-aside?”
Answer : Our irresistible conclusion in view of
the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned cases is that a writ of habeas
corpus would not be maintainable, if the detention
in custody is as per judicial orders passed by a
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
9/11
Judicial Magistrate or a court of competent
jurisdiction. Consequently an order of remand
passed by a Judicial Magistrate having competent
jurisdiction cannot be assailed or set aside in a writ
of habeas corpus.
Question No. 2 : “Whether an order of remand
passed by a Judicial Magistrate could be reviewed
in a petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus,
holding such order of remand to be an illegal
detention?”
Answer : An illegal or irregular exercise of
jurisdiction by a Magistrate passing an order of
remand can be cured by way of challenging the
legality, validity and correctness of the order by
filing appropriate proceedings before the
competent revisional or appellate court under the
statutory provisions of law. Such an order of
remand passed by a Judicial Magistrate of
competent jurisdiction cannot be reviewed in a
petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus.
Question No. 3 : “Whether an improper order
could be termed/viewed as an illegal detention?”
Answer : In view of the clear, unambiguous
and consistent view of the Supreme Court in the
aforediscussed cases, we unhesitatingly conclude
and hold that an illegal order of judicial remand
cannot be termed/viewed as an illegal detention.”
14. In the case of Sachidanand Sah @
Sachchidanand Sah Vs. The State of Bihar and Others
reported in 2022 (1) PLJR 78, this Court was dealing with an
application seeking writ in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
10/11
This Court having considered the scope and ambit of a writ in
the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus has recorded as under:-
“20. In a criminal investigation, what action
should have been taken by the police cannot be
a matter of habeas corpus because it is not the
case of the petitioner that his daughter has
wrongfully been confined by police. Moreover,
it is a settled position in law that investigation
of a cognizable case is the sole domain of the
police. At this stage, the Court has no role to
play.
21. In the instant case, the writ of habeas
corpus cannot be issued because the writ of
habeas corpus is festinum remedium and the
power can only be exercised in a clear case.”
15. Having regard to the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and the fact that the husband of the
petitioner has already been released on bail, this Court finds no
reason to entertain the present writ petition. It is dismissed
accordingly.
16. Before this Court parts with the judgment, the
Court is constrained to record that the young lawyer for the
petitioner kept on arguing and arguing the matter saying that the
law is settled and there are several judgments of the Court. The
lawyer did not bring a single judgment in the Court room, he did
not give any list of books or list of judgments to the Bench and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1174 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
11/11
even in presence of the learned Advocate General and learned
counsel for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, he was unable to
give the official citation of one judgment, he was not even
carrying two copies of the judgment which he was citing,
perhaps from an unofficial report.
17. We have tried to impress upon the learned counsel
to learn the profession with more sincerity and in future,
whenever he wants to rely upon any judgment of any Court of
Law, he should not only make available list of books in advance
to the Bench but should also be prepared with the books in hand
or in soft copies, if he wants to share the same on the screen but
in case, he wants to rely upon any unofficial report, it is
expected that he should carry at least two copies of the
judgment and provide the same to the Judges. In fact, this
practice is required to be followed at the Bar. We record it for
the future purposes.
18. The writ application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
lekhi/-
AFR
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.