The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has allowed a Habeas Corpus petition, declaring the arrest and subsequent detention of an individual illegal due to the failure of police authorities to furnish written grounds of arrest. The Court imposed an exemplary cost of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs) on the State of Uttar Pradesh, noting a “gross violation” of the constitutional mandates established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Background
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, was arrested on January 27, 2026, in connection with Case Crime No. 244 of 2024 at Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao. The arrest memo indicated only the case crime number under the column for reasons of arrest. Following the arrest, a Magistrate granted remand on January 28, 2026. The petitioner challenged the legality of the arrest and detention through a Habeas Corpus writ petition, arguing that the mandatory constitutional safeguard of being informed of the grounds of arrest in writing was not followed.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner was represented by counsels Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi and Prashant Tiwari. The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh, were represented by the Government Advocate (G.A.).
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (2026). It was argued that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India casts a “mandatory and unexceptional duty” on the State to provide the arrested person with written grounds of arrest. Failure to do so, according to the petitioner, renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The learned AGA, appearing for the State, did not dispute the legal principles laid down in the cited Supreme Court judgments but produced a personal affidavit from the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). The affidavit stated that prompt action was being taken and reports were being sought from the Director General of Police, but it failed to provide an explanation as to why exemplary costs should not be imposed for the illegal incarceration.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed that since the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Mihir Rajesh Shah (dated November 6, 2025), authorities are strictly required to adhere to the direction that grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing.
The Court noted:
“The grounds of arrest… indicate that the said grounds of arrest are only indicating about the case crime number… without indicating the grounds on which the petitioner is sought to be arrested.”
Citing the Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India (2026), the Bench reiterated:
“Any deviation from the above principle would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith.”
Regarding the State’s continued detention of the petitioner despite a previous court order dated April 24, 2026, the Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Additional Chief Secretary (Home)’s response:
“The personal affidavit does not even contain a whisper regarding the explanation as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed. If this is the non-application of mind at the end of the highest authority… we can well understand as to how the other authorities of the State are working!!!”
The Court further referenced Rini Johar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016), where the Supreme Court awarded compensation for the curtailment of liberty in violation of statutory safeguards.
Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of Habeas Corpus, declaring the arrest of Manoj Kumar illegal and setting aside the remand order dated January 28, 2026. The Court ordered:
- The petitioner be set free forthwith, provided he is not wanted in any other case.
- Exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000 are imposed on the State authorities for the illegal incarceration of more than three months.
- The State Government is directed to pay the cost within four weeks, with liberty to recover the amount from the responsible officials in accordance with law.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Manoj Kumar Thru. His Son Mudit Kumar vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 others
- Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 137 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Abdul Moin, Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- Date: April 29, 2026
