Patna High Court
Ravi Kumar @ Nishant KumarversusThe State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary Dept. of Home Govt. of Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as it cannot be used to contest a lawful remand order.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar, was arrested in connection with a murder case (charges under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act) and lodged in police custody on 8 October 2025. He filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the arrest memo dated 7 October 2025 violated Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita because the grounds of arrest were not supplied in the prescribed written form. The respondents contended that the memo did contain the required information, the petitioner was produced before a magistrate, and the remand order was valid. The Court examined whether a habeas corpus petition could be used to challenge a lawful remand order and held that the petition merely sought to set aside the remand, not to address an illegal detention. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ application, directing the petitioner to pursue any remedy available under the regular criminal procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s detention is illegal for lack of written grounds of arrest under Section 47 BNSS.
- Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be entertained to challenge a judicial remand order under Article 226.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 3(5)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita — s. 47
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- illegal custody
- arrest memo
- Section 47 BNSS
- remand
- criminal procedure
- Article 226
- murder case
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.956 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2025 Thana- Chitragupta Nagar District- Patna
======================================================
Ravi Kumar @ Nishant Kumar S/o Lalan Singh @ Lalan Mahto @ Keshav
Mahto R/o Munna Chak, Near Commerce College, Road No. 17, P.S.-
Chitragupt Nagar, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary Dept. of Home Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
3. The Inspector General of Police, Prison, Bihar
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna
5. The Station House Officer, Chitragupt Nagar, PS-Patna
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AC to AG for the State of Bihar.
2. This writ application has been filed for issuance of
a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for a direction upon the
Respondent Authorities to release the petitioner from illegal
custody/ detention in relation to Chitragupt Nagar P.S. Case No.
210 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a named accused in Chitragupt Nagar P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.956 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/5
210 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 103(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The
grievance of the petitioner is that he was taken into custody by
the I.O. in connection with the said case on 08.10.2025 in a
most mechanical and arbitrary manner. It is submitted that the
petitioner was arrested by police as per arrest memo dated
07.10.2025 and was forwarded to the court for judicial remand
on 08.10.2025 which will appear from the signature of the SHO
of Chitragupt Nagar Police Station but the learned Judicial
Magistrate has put his signature granting permission on
07.10.2025 itself.
4. The submission is that the arrest memo prepared by
the police on 07.10.2025 is in violation of Section 47 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘BNSS’). The
mandate of Section 47 of the BNSS is to provide the grounds for
arrest to the accused in proper written format but the same has
not been followed. Annexure ‘P/3’ is the arrest memo placed
before this Court.
5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Sah versus State of
Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, learned
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.956 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/5
counsel submits that non-supply of the grounds of arrest to the
petitioner would render his custody illegal.
6. On the other hand, Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned AC to
AG submits that in this case, the petitioner is a named accused
alleged to be involved in the murder of the husband of the
informant. He was arrested by police on 07.10.2025 which
would be evident from Annexure ‘P/3’. The arrest memo
contains a statement in paragraph ‘7’ that the arrestee has been
informed of the reasons and his legal rights at the time of his
arrest. Information has also been given to one Renu Kumari
who has been described as the wife of the petitioner. Referring
to the paragraphs ‘11’ and ‘13’ of the arrest memo, it is
submitted that in paragraph ‘11’, said Renu Kumari has put her
signature whereas in paragraph ‘13’, the petitioner has himself
put his signature.
7. It is further submitted that after the arrest, he was
produced before the learned Magistrate it would, however,
appear that there was some mistake in putting the date by the
SHO on the arrest memo as well as the forwarding letter. The
learned Magistrate before whom the petitioner was produced,
having himself satisfied with the materials placed before him
granted remand of the petitioner in police custody for purpose of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.956 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/5
investigation. The memo of forwarding would show that at the
instance of the petitioner, firearm and cartridges were also
recovered.
8. It is further submitted that since his arrest and 1 st
production before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner never
raised any issue of non-supply of grounds of arrest. In the writ
application also, he has not made any statement either that he
was not produced before the learned Magistrate on 07.10.2025
or that after his production before the learned Magistrate, he
ever raised the ground of non-supply of written grounds before
the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that in this case, the
remand has been given on the request of the SHO who
submitted Annexure ‘P/2’ before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Civil Court, Patna.
9. This writ application does not contain any
statement whether after his remand, the petitioner has moved for
bail or not. Prayer has been made to refuse to entertain the writ
application as in the garb of the writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus, the petitioner is trying to assail the order of remand
which is not available on the record.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned AC to AG as also on perusal of the records, this
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.956 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
5/5
Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present
case where the petitioner is a named accused in a murder case,
he has been arrested by the SHO of the Police Station and at his
instance, arms and cartridges are said to have been recovered, a
writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus may not be entertained.
From the averments made in the writ application, it is evident
that in the garb of writ application, the petitioner is challenging
the order of remand. The petitioner is in judicial custody by
virtue of an order of the competent court, the said order has not
been brought before the Court but the petitioner is in fact trying
to come out of the said order by filing this writ application. This
Court is sitting in it’s plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Every case has it's own facts.
11. In the facts of the present case, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the writ application as framed. It is
dismissed.
12. The petitioner may seek his remedy, if any,
available to him in accordance with law.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.