Allahabad HC Flags Conflict In SC Rulings On Illegal Arrests, Says Habeas Corpus Plea Not Maintainable After Cognizance

The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused cannot ordinarily invoke the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus to challenge an allegedly illegal arrest after a court has taken cognizance of the offence on a charge sheet, while also flagging what it described as a conflict between older and recent Supreme Court rulings governing illegal arrest and detention.

Dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man facing trial in a dowry death and murder case, a division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi said that once investigation is complete and cognizance has been taken, the legality of the initial arrest or remand cannot be enforced through a habeas corpus petition and the accused must pursue remedies available under criminal law.

The petitioner, arrested in a 2024 case registered in Lalitpur under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and other provisions of the IPC, contended that the grounds of his arrest were not communicated to him in writing and were also not disclosed to his family members. Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions, including Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, he argued that the alleged violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution rendered his arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had been in judicial custody pursuant to valid remand orders, that charges had already been framed and that the trial had substantially progressed. It was also pointed out that the petitioner approached the high court more than two years after his arrest and after his bail application had already been rejected.

What conflict in Supreme Court rulings did the court identify?

The bench said it was confronted with two distinct lines of Supreme Court precedent.

According to the judgment, older decisions such as Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, A.K. Gopalan v. Government of India and Sanjay Dutt v. State proceed on the principle that while considering a habeas corpus petition, a court must examine the legality of the detention existing on the date of hearing. Under this line of authority, if a valid judicial order subsequently authorises custody, defects in the initial detention cannot ordinarily form the basis for release.

Court contrasted these rulings with recent judgments such as Vihaan Kumar, Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah, which emphasise that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and can vitiate the arrest and subsequent remand.

The bench observed that the recent judgments do not appear to have considered the earlier line of authorities which examined the maintainability of habeas corpus petitions after subsequent judicial orders have intervened.

Why did the court refuse relief?

Court noted that the petitioner approached it after cognizance had been taken, charges had been framed and prosecution witnesses were being examined during trial. It observed that permitting challenges to initial arrest at such advanced stages of criminal proceedings could create serious practical difficulties.

The judgment noted that the recent line of decisions had resulted in a large number of accused persons approaching courts at different stages of investigation and trial alleging defects in their initial arrest. The bench remarked that "flood gates have been opened" and that a "pandora's box" had emerged, with habeas corpus petitions being filed even after cognizance, framing of charges and commencement of trial.

Court further observed that if such challenges were allowed after completion of investigation and commencement of trial, the entire criminal process could be rendered redundant despite subsequent judicial orders passed by competent courts.

Holding that a challenge to an allegedly illegal arrest through habeas corpus can ordinarily be maintained only until cognizance is taken on the police report, the bench said an accused remains free to pursue statutory remedies, including bail and other challenges available under criminal procedure law.

Finding that the petitioner had approached the court at an "extremely belated stage" and that the trial was already underway, the bench dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

Case Title: Neeraj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Judgment Date: May 27, 2026

Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi