Case Background
This case arose from a criminal writ petition filed in the Patna High Court under its criminal writ jurisdiction, registered as Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 989 of 2025. The petitioner is a private individual, the son-in-law of Respondent No. 9, brother-in-law of Respondent No. 10 and cousin brother-in-law of Respondent No. 11.
He approached the Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus, asking for a direction to the authorities to release private Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 from what he described as illegal detention by the police.
According to the petitioner, on 29.04.2025 at about 11:00 AM, police officials from Makhdumpur Police Station, Jehanabad, along with officers from Town Police Station, Jehanabad, came to the house of Respondent No. 9 (his mother-in-law) in Village Dakara, P.S. Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad.
He stated that Respondent No. 9 was taken into police custody and removed from the village without giving any information about her arrest to her nearest family members, friends or relatives. Her husband is described as handicapped and of unsound mind. Their son, Respondent No. 10 (Aditya Raj), was then in an examination hall appearing in the BPSC Mains Examination. Villagers informed the petitioner about this incident.
Further, the petitioner stated that on 01.05.2025, at about 06:30–07:00 AM, a police team came to the house of Respondent No. 11 at Govindpur, Fatuah, where Respondent No. 10 was staying for the BPSC Mains Examination. Both Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were allegedly arrested and taken away without proper information being given to the family members of Respondent No. 11.
The petitioner claimed that he had no information as to where any of these three persons were being kept. He sent a petition dated 02.05.2025 to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, and the DIG, Magadh Range, Gaya, by speed post and e-mail, requesting that Respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 be released from illegal police detention. Proof of dispatch and e-mail acknowledgment was filed as Annexure P1 series to the writ petition.
The main grievance before the Patna High Court was that the police had picked up and detained these three persons without following the established procedure of law, in violation of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and constitutional safeguards.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad (authoring the oral judgment) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey heard the matter. The State was represented by the Assistant Counsel to the Advocate General, and the petitioner was represented by his counsel.
At the Court’s direction, the S.H.O., Makhdumpur P.S. (Respondent No. 7), the S.H.O., Town P.S. Jehanabad (Respondent No. 8), and the Investigating Officer of Jehanabad Town P.S. Case No. 337 of 2025, Mr. Pranav Kumar (subsequently added as Respondent No. 12), appeared personally.
The petitioner’s specific case was that Respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 were taken by the police without following mandatory safeguards. He alleged that family members were not informed, no arrest memos were prepared, and the persons were not produced before a Jurisdictional Magistrate within twenty-four hours. He invoked Section 48 and Section 187(1) of BNSS and the safeguards corresponding to earlier Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS), asserting that these had been blatantly violated.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State respondents, in particular Respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8. It was sworn by the S.H.O. of Jehanabad Police Station (though wrongly described as the Investigating Officer in the opening paragraph).
As to Respondent No. 10 (Aditya Raj), the State stated that he was in judicial custody under a lawful remand order of the competent court in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 337 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025, registered under provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), originally Section 140(3), later converted to Section 140(1), 103(1), 238 and 61(2) BNS. He was said to have been arrested on 03.05.2025 at 03:00 AM and produced the same day.
Regarding Respondent No. 9, the counter affidavit admitted that she was brought from her village house to Nagar Police Station on 29.04.2025 at 20:00 hours. The police claimed this was done “in course of investigation” and “for her safety and to keep surveillance” because her son, accused Ranjan Kumar Gupta, was in touch with her and allegedly trying to destroy evidence and conceal her from the police.
It was stated that she was sent to an “Alpwas Grih” (shelter home) under the protection of S.I. Maya Kumari at 20:20 hours on 29.04.2025, and handed over there at 21:00 hours. A sanha entry was said to have been made. According to the State, she was brought back to the police station premises on 04.05.2025 at 22:35 hours and then released on a P.R. bond, returning home with relatives.
As to Respondent No. 11 (Gautam Kumar), the State said he was brought to Nagar Police Station on 01.05.2025 at 10:45 hours “for interrogation as suspect” and then “freed by police”. Later, on 04.05.2025 at about 23:40 hours, he was again brought for interrogation and then freed on P.R. bond, as per Sanha Entry No. 0172 dated 04.05.2025.
Crucially, a reading of the counter affidavit showed that there was no denial that no information of the arrest or custody of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 was given to any family member, relative or friend. There was also no claim that any arrest memo had been prepared. Specific statements in the writ petition on these points were not controverted.
By order dated 08.08.2025, the Court recorded that the AC to AG himself admitted that once Respondent No. 9 had been sent to the Alpwas Grih on 29.04.2025 at 20:20 hours, she was never brought back to the police station for interrogation. The counter affidavit did not say she was ever interrogated, nor did it state that the Jurisdictional Magistrate was informed at any time during her nearly five days of detention in the Alpwas Grih.
With regard to Respondent No. 11, the Court noted that there was no assertion that he had been served notice under Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS). The affidavit itself showed that he was picked up and brought to the police station as a “suspect” without any disclosure of credible material justifying his detention. The petitioner’s specific claim that Respondent No. 11 had been picked up at about 06:30–07:00 AM on 01.05.2025 and kept in detention until the swearing of the affidavit on 03.05.2025 was not specifically denied by the Investigating Officer.
The Court thus clearly distinguished between the situation of Respondent No. 10, who was then in judicial custody under a remand order (in respect of whom it did not go into the issue of legality of arrest at this stage), and that of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11, whose detention remained unexplained in law.
Respondent No. 11 himself appeared and filed an affidavit stating that he was confined in police custody until 09:30 PM on 03.05.2025.
The Court directed that CCTV footage of the concerned police stations be preserved and watched, but found “nothing substantive” in the available clips.
On 30.08.2025, the AC to AG made a candid submission that as regards compliance with legal requirements at the time of taking a person into police custody, it was clear that Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 had been taken into custody without fulfilling those requirements. He stated that there was no significant or convincing defence available on this issue.
A supplementary counter affidavit revealed that departmental explanation had been sought by the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, from the Station House Officer, Makhdumpur P.S., and that the SHO had submitted his reply. However, this affidavit did not address the core legal violations. It further came out that neither Respondent No. 9 nor Respondent No. 11 had been interrogated, nor were their statements recorded in the case diary, even though they were kept in custody and never produced before a Jurisdictional Magistrate.
Sensing the Court’s concern, the AC to AG requested a lenient view on the ground that the police officers had acted during investigation of a serious case. He proposed that a suitable amount of compensation could be awarded, and stated that the erring officials were ready to pay.
On the next date, the AC to AG appeared with Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 12, who were involved in picking up and detaining Respondent Nos. 9 and 11. All of them admitted that they had not complied with the requirements of law.
The Court then turned to binding legal principles. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960), which held that compensation for violation of fundamental rights can be awarded under Articles 32 and 226 on a strict liability basis, and that sovereign immunity is no defence in such public law actions.
The Court referred to its own earlier judgment in Raj Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2002 SCC OnLine Pat 786) to similar effect.
Most importantly, it cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, where detailed requirements were laid down for arrest and detention: identification of police, preparation of arrest memo attested by a witness and countersigned by the arrestee, immediate intimation to a friend or relative, diary entries showing place and time, medical examination, and intimation to the nearest Magistrate and police control room, among others. The Court noted that these requirements flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and must be strictly followed.
It also referred to Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086), where the Supreme Court held that refusing compensation in clear cases would amount to lip-service to the fundamental right to liberty. Additionally, it noticed the Delhi High Court judgment in Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215), where compensation of Rs. 50,000 was awarded for an illegal lock-up detention of just half an hour, recoverable from the salaries of the erring officials.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court found that the police officers had contravened established procedure and violated the constitutional rights of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 by keeping them in custody without any sanction of law, without information to families, arrest memos, Magistrate’s orders, or even any interrogation or case diary entry.
The Court held that Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 were each entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. It directed the State of Bihar to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to each of them within thirty days, and mandated that the State recover this amount from Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 12, who had admitted violating the fundamental rights of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 by not following lawful procedure.
For recovery from erring officials, the Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak v. Ravi Shankar Prasad, reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 1051, which has attained finality as the Supreme Court did not interfere with it in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, to ensure that such occurrences are not reported again from his district, warning that if similar incidents are brought to the Court’s notice, he may be held liable for failing to control officers under his command.
It emphasised that while police are free to act in investigation, they must strictly obey the rule of law so as to maintain public confidence. Picking up a person from home in the name of interrogation, without informing any family member, relative or friend about the reasons and place of detention, and keeping that person in custody without obtaining an order from the Jurisdictional Magistrate, is “completely unlawful” and cannot be approved.
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, Bihar, for issuing appropriate guidelines, in line with the law and judicial pronouncements, to prevent similar violations. Such guidelines are to be issued within one month from receipt of the judgment.
The writ application was accordingly allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for ordinary citizens because it directly deals with illegal police detention and shows that the Patna High Court will not ignore such violations, even if the person has already been released.
The Court made it clear that the police cannot pick up anyone from home, keep them in a shelter home or in a police station for days, and later justify it in the name of “investigation” or “safety” without following legal procedure.
The judgment underlines that:
- Family members must be informed when someone is taken into custody.
- Arrest memos and diary entries must be made.
- A person must be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours if they are to be kept in custody.
- Even short or so-called “protective” detention without these safeguards is illegal.
For victims of such illegal detention, this decision shows that they can seek compensation through a writ petition, and that the money can be recovered from the salaries of the responsible officers, not just from the State exchequer.
For police authorities in Bihar, the judgment sends a strong message that they must strictly follow the directions laid down in D.K. Basu and related cases, and that senior officers like the Superintendent of Police and the Director General of Police have a duty to enforce these standards.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the detention of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 by the Jehanabad police, without information to family members, without arrest memos, interrogation, or production before a Magistrate, was lawful.
Answer: The Patna High Court held that their detention was illegal and in complete violation of constitutional safeguards, statutory provisions and the directions of the Supreme Court in cases like D.K. Basu. -
Issue: Whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus writ petition, can grant monetary compensation for such illegal detention.
Answer: Yes. Relying on Nilabati Behera, Rudal Sah and other precedents, the Court held that compensation in public law can be awarded under Article 226 for contravention of fundamental rights, and directed payment of Rs. 1,00,000 each to Respondent Nos. 9 and 11. -
Issue: Whether the amount of compensation paid by the State can be recovered from the erring police officers personally.
Answer: Yes. Following its own earlier decision in K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak and settled law, the Court directed that the compensation be recovered from Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 12, who had admitted the violations.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 1993 SC 1960.
- Raj Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Another, 2002 SCC OnLine Pat 786.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.
- Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1983 SC 1086.
- Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215.
- K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak v. Ravi Shankar Prasad and Others, 2019 (1) PLJR 1051.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 (referred in earlier order of the Court).
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 989 of 2025
Case Title: Arvind Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 230
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Raj Kumar Rai, Advocate; Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate.
- For the State: Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, AC to AG.
Nature of the Case: Criminal writ petition seeking writ of habeas corpus challenging alleged illegal police detention and seeking release/relief for private respondents.
Link to Judgment: Full text of judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
