# Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1717
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-29
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 137 of 2026
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54704
- **Pages:** 16

## Text

_Characters 0–39,432 of 51,005. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39432 for what follows._

4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1717
vacate and handover peaceful possession of the premises in question, to respondentlandlord, on or before 2nd December, 2026, subject to the following conditions:

 (i) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Rent Authority, Kanpur
Nagar, to the effect that he shall handover peaceful possession of the premises in question, to the
respondent-landlord on or before 2nd December, 2026;

 (ii) The said undertaking shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today; and

 (iii) The tenant-petitioner shall also regularly deposit a monthly amount of Rs.2000/-
towards 'use and occupation charges' by the 7th day of each month, during the period of extended
occupation.

45. It is made clear that in the event of default in compliance of any of the aforesaid
conditions, the protection granted by this Court, shall stand vacated automatically and it shall be
open to the respondent-landlord to seek execution of the order passed in the Rent Case in
accordance with law.

46. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1717
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 137 of 2026

Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Why exemplary cost should not be awarded to the petitioner for his illegal incarceration in jail since
27.01.2026 till date comprising of a period of almost three months, as the life and personal liberty of the
petitioner has been curtailed by the respondent authorities/State.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 (Habeas Corpus)-The grounds of arrest have been
perused and considered by the Court in the order dated 24.04.2026 and this court has recorded a
categorical finding in the said order, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan versus Union of India that the arrest of the petitioner on
27.01.2026 has been made without complying with the procedure as directed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah meaning thereby that the arrest of the petitioner
on 27.01.2026 is illegal. It is further recorded that the remand order granted by the learned
1718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate dated 28.01.2026, being based on the illegal arrest of the petitioner, is also liable to
be set aside keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam Chaurasiya vs.
State of U.P. and others. This Court was also of the view that the writ petition deserves to be
allowed with exemplary cost and consequently directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to
submit his reply as to why exemplary cost should not be awarded to the petitioner for his illegal
incarceration in jail since 27.01.2026 till date comprising of a period of almost three months.

Additional Chief Secretary (Home) has failed to file a reply with regard to submission of a reply
as to why exemplary costs should not be imposed rather -It thus appears that Additional Chief
Secretary (Home) has not even cared to go through the order of this Court dated 24.4.2026
which, as we have already indicated above, required him to file a reply as to why exemplary cost
should not be imposed for the illegal incarceration of the petitioner.

The personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) does not even contain a whisper
regarding the explanation as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed. If this is the nonapplication of mind at the end of the highest authority of the Home Department we can well
understand as to how the other authorities of the State are working!!!

Held- Considering the illegal arrest of the petitioner since 27.1.2026 which continues even as of date i.e.
29.4.2026 and his illegal incarceration in jail being of more than three months, the Court is of the view that
exemplary costs quantified at Rupees Ten Lakhs are also imposed on the State authorities.
Petition Allowed. (E-15)

(Para 5, 8, 9 & 15)
Case Law Cited
Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2026 (1) SCC 500; Dr Rajinder Rajan vs Union of India : 2026
Live Law (SC) 327; Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2026:AHC-LKO:10501-DB;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Illegal incarceration; Habeas Corpus petition; Deserves to be allowed with exemplary cost; No whisper in the
affidavit; Regarding explanation to why exemplary cost not imposed; Cost of Rupees Ten Lakhs ;Imposed on
the State authorities

Case Arising From
Prayer to issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus declaring the petitioner's arrest &
detention illegal, pass an order setting aside the remand order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Unnao in Case Crime No.244 of 2024, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao and
direct the respondent No.1, 2, 3 and 4 to release the petitioner forthwith.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, Prashant Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.
&
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)
4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1719

1. Personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. filed
today in Court is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 4 and
perused the records including the case diary as produced by the learned AGA.

3. There is consensus at the bar that the facts of the case including the points in dispute and
the consideration of the same has already been made by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2026. For
the sake of convenience, the order dated 24.04.2026 is reproduced below:-

 "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the
respondent nos.1 to 4. Perused the records produced by the learned AGA.

 2. No notice be issued to respondent no.5, who is the complainant.

 3. By means of the instant petition in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-

 "(i) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus declaring the
petitioner's arrest & detention illegal, pass an order setting aside the remand order dated
28.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Unnao in Case Crime No.244 of
2024, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao and direct the respondent No.1, 2, 3 and 4 to release
the petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice.

 (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

 (iii) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

 4. Admittedly, the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner as FIR No.
244 of 2024, dated 03.09.2024, at Police Station- Asiwan, District- Unnao by the Respondent No.
4/complainant.

 5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been arrested on 27.01.2026. A copy of the
arrest memo is annexed as annexure no.3 to the petition. The reasons for arrest have been
indicated in Column no.13 of the arrest memo, which only indicates about the aforesaid case crime
number being lodged against the petitioner.

 6. The learned Magistrate vide its order dated 28.01.2026 has granted remand to the
petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail vide Anticipatory Bail
Application No.3614 of 2025 in re: Manoj Vs. State of U.P. before the learned District & Sessions
Judge, Unnao, which has been rejected vide order dated 07.01.2026, a copy of which is annexed as
annexure no.6 to the petition.
1720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 7. The primary and legal ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
instant petition of habeas corpus challenging his illegal arrest is based on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2026 (1) SCC 500,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held, after considering Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed of the grounds of such arrest. This casts a mandatory and unexceptional duty on the State
to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest. Supply of grounds of arrest have
also been held to be grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of
arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory, binding constitutional safeguard which has been
included in Part III of the Constitution under the head of "Fundamental Rights".

 8. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) are reproduced below:-

 "28. It was said that any breach of the constitutional safeguards provided under Article
22 would vitiate the lawfulness of arrest and subsequent remand and entitle the arrested person to
be set at liberty. The relevant portion in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] is reproduced herein: (SCC pp. 276 & 278,
paras 19-21 & 28-29)

 "19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for
allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other
offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in
writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as
a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested
person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the
only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody
remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

 20. The right to life and personal liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right
guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon
this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard,
we may refer to the following observations made by this Court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [Roy
V.D. v. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 42] : (SCC p. 593, para 7)

 '7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be
interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and
applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution, Article 21 guarantees protection of life and
personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.'

 Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22
of the Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with strictly.
4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1721
 21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamentalright would vitiate the process of
arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate
the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the
grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.

*****

 28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional
provisions require that the "grounds" of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be
communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as
made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement
to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.

 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the
grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an
offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5)
of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Noncompliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or
the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be."

*******

 31. The relevant portion of Vihaan Kumar [Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5
SCC 799 : (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 762] is reproduced herein: (SCC pp. 814-15, 817 & 822-23, paras
15, 21 & 40-42)

 "15. The view taken in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC
576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] was reiterated by this Court in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] . In paras 28 and
29, this Court held thus: (Prabir Purkayastha case [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] , SCC p. 278)

 '28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional
provisions require that the "grounds" of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be
communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as
made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement
to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.

 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the
grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an
1722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5)
of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Noncompliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or
the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.'

*****

 21. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and
now a charge-sheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is
pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge-sheet. Accepting such arguments,
with great respect to the learned Senior Counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21
and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of
Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on
orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge-sheet and order of cognizance will not validate
an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article
22.

 *****

 N. Kotiswar Singh, J. (supplementing)?I had the benefit of going through the draft
opinion of my esteemed Brother Hon'ble Mr Justice Abhay S. Oka and I concur with the analysis
and conclusions arrived at. However, I wish to add a few lines in supplement to the aforesaid
opinion.

 41. The issue on the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest to the person
arrested, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which has also been
incorporated in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Section 19 thereof has been
succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of
arrest to the person arrested in writing has been explained in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v.
Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] so as to be meaningful to serve the
intended purpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] . The said constitutional mandate has
been incorporated in the statute under Section 50CrPC (Section 47 of the BNSS). It may also be
noted that the aforesaid provision of requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest, to be
purposeful, is also required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other persons of
the accused as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information as provided under Section 50-ACrPC. As may be noted, this is in the addition of the
requirement as provided under Section 50(1)CrPC.

 42. The purpose of inserting Section 50-A CrPC, making it obligatory on the person
making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the
arrested person, is to ensure that they would be able to take immediate and prompt actions to
secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person,
4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1723
because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing
his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated
persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail
at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and
in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained
person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him
through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible
opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is
not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be
disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal."

 (emphasis in original)

 *****

 35. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC
260 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172] , this Court while framing guidelines regarding the rights of an
arrested person has observed that the existence of a power to arrest and the justification to use
such power are two different aspects. The person making arrest must be able to justify the arrest
with reasons apart from his power to do so. Arrest of a person can cause irreversible damage to
his reputation in the society as well as his self-esteem, therefore, arrest cannot be made in a routine
manner. The police officer making an arrest must be cautious while arresting a person and ought
to satisfy himself after a reasonable investigation to justify the person's complicity and also the
effect as well as the need of arrest. This Court has further observed that except in heinous offences,
arrest must be avoided.

*****

 37. The mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is unambiguous
and clear in nature, it provides that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest
as soon as they can be. It further provides that the arrested person has the right to defend himself
by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This constitutional mandate has been effectuated by
the legislature in Section 50CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) which provides that an arrested
person shall be forthwith communicated with the grounds of his arrest.

*****

 41. The purpose of securing legal assistance before remand is not merely symbolic, but it
is to ensure that the accused is afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the prayer for police
custody and to place before the Magistrate any circumstances that may warrant refusal or
limitation of such custody. If the accused is not represented through a counsel, he/she should be
made aware that he/she is entitled for legal aid. As far as possible, it shall be ensured that every
accused person is represented by an advocate, if he is not able to avail such assistance, he should
1724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be given free legal aid. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok v. State of U.P. [Ashok v. State
of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 381 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 744] held that an accused who is not represented
by an advocate is entitled for free legal aid at all material stages starting from remand.

*****

 43. Section 167CrPC (now Section 187 of BNSS 2023) while dealing with remand
provides for a positive mandate on the police officer to forward the accused to the Magistrate
before expiry of such period as fixed under Section 57CrPC (now Section 58 of BNSS 2023) when
investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. It further mandates that the Magistrate to
not authorize the detention of accused unless he is physically produced before him. The purpose of
this provision mandating the production of accused before Magistrate for exercise of the power of
remanding him to custody under this section is with the dual purpose. First, ensuring physical
presence of the accused and second to afford him an opportunity to be heard. The intent of this
provision is not merely to be heard at the stage of remand but to be represented by the counsel of
his choice. Thereafter, the duty is cast upon the Magistrate to apply his judicial mind to the
material produced before him, hear the accused or the counsel representing him to determine
whether the accused should be remanded to police custody or should be detained at all within the
parameters prescribed in Section 167CrPC (Section 187 of BNSS 2023). The Magistrate is not
acting as a post office simply putting a stamp of approval to the remand papers as presented before
him. In Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat [Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat,
(2013) 1 SCC 314 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 475] this Court held that it is obligatory on the part of the
Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand.

*****

 45. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India shows that the intent of
the Constitution makers while incorporating the provisions was not to create any exceptional
circumstances, instead it reads as "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest?.", it casts a mandatory
unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with
the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of
his choice. This mandate of Article 22(1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it
explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded
in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the Penal Code, 1860 (now
BNS 2023).

 46. The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of
and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory
binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in Part III of the Constitution under the
head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon
as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.
4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1725
*****

 48. As mentioned above, it has been held while dealing with the mode of communicating
the grounds of arrest so as to serve the intended purpose of the constitutional mandate that the
language used in Articles 22(1) and 22(5) regarding communication of the grounds is identical and
therefore the interpretation of Article 22(5) shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1). The grounds of
arrest must be furnished in writing, in order to attend the true intended purpose of Article 22(1).
Reference at this stage may be made to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Harikisan
[Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117] wherein while dealing with Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India in the context of the right of a detainee to be made aware of the
grounds of arrest, it has been held that the same should be furnished in a language which he can
understand and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person.

*****

 50. Further, the above judgment has been reiterated and followed by this Court in
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India [Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2
SCC 427 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 463 : (1982) 52 Comp Cas 543] wherein it has been reaffirmed that
grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu in writing in a language which he
understands.

 51. On perusal of the above two judgments, it turns out that mere communication of the
grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional
mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a
language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes
the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
India. The objective of the constitutional mandate is to place the person in a position to
comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him and it can only be realised when the
grounds are furnished in a language understood by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise
his rights effectively.

 52. From the catena of decisions discussed above, the legal position which emerges is
that the constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere
procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form of fundamental rights. The intent
and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. If the
provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing
personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse.

*****

 55. This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the intended objective of the constitutional
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest must be informed to the
arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of
such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands.
1726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
*****

 57. The second issue which requires consideration is when grounds of arrest are not
furnished either prior to arrest or immediately after the arrest, would it vitiate the arrest for noncompliance of the provisions of Section 50CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) irrespective of
certain exigencies where furnishing such grounds would not be possible forthwith.

*****

 58. It is by now settled that if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the arrestee in
writing, this non-compliance will result in breach of the constitutional and statutory safeguards
hence rendering the arrest and remand illegal and the person will be entitled to be set at liberty.
The statute is silent with regard to the mode, nature or the time and stage at which the grounds of
arrest has to be communicated. Article 22 says "as soon as may be" which would obviously not
mean prior to arrest but can be on arrest or thereafter. The indication is as early as it can be
conveyed. There may be situations wherein it may not be practically possible to supply such
grounds of arrest to the arrested person at the time of his arrest or immediately.

*****

 62. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are already in possession of
documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must
be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences
against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in
writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person
making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written
copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in
no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand
proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in
supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the Magistrate.

*****

 64. In view of the above, we hold with regard to the second issue that non-supply of
grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate
such arrest on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50CrPC (now Section
47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and
in any case two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand
proceedings.

*****

 68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating
written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view,
would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted
4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1727
under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation
would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal
discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."

 9. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Dr Rajinder Rajan vs Union
of India : 2026 Live Law (SC) 327 has also held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in
writing to the arrested person, in order to attend the true intended purpose of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. As such it is apparent that supply of grounds of arrest to the person being
arrested is a constitutional mandate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that if the grounds
of arrest are not furnished to the arrestee in writing, the non-compliance will result in breach of
the constitutional and statutory safeguards hence rendering the arrest and remand illegal and the
person will be entitled to be set at liberty. The aforesaid directions in the case of Mihir Rajesh
Shah (Supra) have been directed to govern all arrests with effect from the date of judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is 06.11.2025.

 10. Thus considering the aforesaid it is apparent that since the pronouncement of the
judgment on 06.11.2025, the respondents authorities are required to adhere to the directions which
have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) meaning
thereby that if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the arrestee in writing, this noncompliance will result in breach of the constitutional and statutory safeguards hence rendering the
arrest and remand illegal.

 11. Perusal of the grounds of arrest, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-3 to
the petition, would indicate that the said grounds of arrest are only indicating about the case crime
number which has been lodged against the petitioner without indicating the grounds on which the
petitioner is sought to be arrested.

 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Dr Rajinder Rajan (supra) after
considering Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) has held as under:-

 20. It is no longer res integra that supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in
writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately
thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra)
conclusively holds that any deviation from the above principle would lead to the arrest of the
accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith.

 13. Interestingly, indication of the case crime number in the memo of arrest without
indicating the grounds of arrest has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rajinder
Rajan (supra) wherein the ground taken by the authorities was that as the case crime number has
been mentioned in the memo of arrest that would suffice. However, the Apex Court was of the view
that supplying the ground of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest is a mandate of
Constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22 (1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and that any deviation from the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mihir
1728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajesh Shah (supra) would lead to the arrest of accused being declared illegal entitling such
accused to be released forthwith.

 14. Thus, it it apparent that the petitioner has been arrested on 27.01.2026 without
complying with the procedure as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir
Rajesh Shah (Supra), meaning thereby that the arrest of petitioner with effect from 27.01.2026 is
illegal. The remand order which has been granted by the learned Magistrate dated 28.01.2026, is
based on the illegal arrest of the petitioner and is thus also liable to be set-aside, keeping in view
the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and Others;
2026:AHC-LKO:10501-DB, wherein, in a similar matter, this court has held as under:-

 "27. So far as the argument of the learned AGAs that as the petitioner is now in custody
in pursuance to the remand order passed by the learned Magistrate and thus the illegality, if any,
in the arrest gets obliterated which argument has been advanced on the basis of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the same merits to be rejected inasmuch as it
is a settled proposition of law that once the edifice goes the super structure collapses meaning
thereby that in case the arrest itself is declared illegal even if the remand order has been passed,
the same would also be rendered bad keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra)."

 15. On the other hand, the learned AGA does not dispute the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) and Dr Rajinder Rajan (supra) and
Shivam Chaurasiya (Supra), and the principles of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

 16. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that this petition deserves to be
allowed. The fact that the petitioner has been in jail since 27.01.2026, and as already observed
above, his continued incarceration would be in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra).

 17. However, before allowing the writ petition we are of the view that the writ petition
deserves to be allowed with exemplary costs, particularly when the petitioner has lost his personal
liberty on account of an illegal act on the part of the authorities, who have failed to follow the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra), wherein it was
categorically held that informing a person of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a
mandatory, binding constitutional safeguard. Thus, it is apparent that the authorities have
flagrantly violated the constitutional safeguards provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra). Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner has lost his personal life
and liberty for no fault on his part but on account of the authorities not following the
Constitutional safeguards directed to be followed by the Apex Court.

 18. Considering the aforesaid, we direct the Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
Government of U.P. i.e the respondent no. 1 to submit a reply as to why exemplary costs should not
be awarded to the petitioner for his illegal incarceration in jail from 27.01.2026 until the present
date, comprising a period of almost three months.
4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1729
 19. Let the reply be filed within three days.

 20. List this case on 29.04.2026 at 02:15 PM.

 21. In the event the reply is not submitted, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home,
Government of U.P, Lucknow shall appear in person, along with all relevant records, to assist the
Court.

 22. The learned AGA shall communicate this order to the Additional Chief Secretary
(Home) forthwith, without waiting for a certified copy.

 23. The A.G.A. shall again produce the records including case diary etc. on the date
fixed."

 4. From the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 24.04.2026, it emerges that the petitioner
has approached this Court being aggrieved by his arrest and illegal detention and the remand order
dated 28.01.2026.

 5. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of
Maharashtra : 2026 (1) SCC 500wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, has held that no person who is arrested shall be detained in
custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest. The grounds of arrest have also been
perused and considered by this Court in the order dated 24.04.2026 and this court has recorded a
categorical finding in the said order, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dr.