Sajjad Husain LawSajjad Husain Law Associates

Allahabad High Court Clarifies Scope of Habeas Corpus After Cognizance and Trial Commencement

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

Citation: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 218 of 2026

Court: Allahabad High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Siddharth and Hon'ble Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi

Reserved on: 21.05.2026

Delivered on: 27.05.2026

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, accused in a case involving offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC along with Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, challenged his continued detention through a Habeas Corpus petition. The principal contention was that at the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing nor informed to his family members, allegedly violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and the requirements of the BNSS. The petitioner relied upon recent Supreme Court decisions including Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal, Vihaan Kumar, Kasireddy Upender Reddy and Mihir Rajesh Shah.

State's Defence

The State opposed the petition contending that:

1. The petitioner was in judicial custody pursuant to valid remand orders.
2. Charges had already been framed and trial had substantially progressed.
3. Bail application had been rejected earlier.
4. Habeas Corpus was not maintainable against judicial custody founded on valid remand and subsequent judicial orders.
5. The legality of detention must be examined with reference to the detention existing on the date of hearing and not the initial arrest.

Issues Before the Court

The Division Bench formulated two important questions:

1. Whether a person can invoke Habeas Corpus at any stage of investigation or trial alleging violation of Articles 21 and 22 at the time of initial arrest.
2. Whether any timeline exists for challenging such alleged illegality through Habeas Corpus proceedings.

Important Observations

The Court examined two lines of Supreme Court authorities:

First Line of Cases (Traditional View)

Cases such as:

1. Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate
2. A.K. Gopalan
3. Sanjay Dutt
4. Naranjan Singh Nathawan

hold that in Habeas Corpus proceedings, the Court examines the legality of detention existing on the date of hearing. If subsequent valid judicial orders have intervened, the legality of the original arrest loses significance.

Second Line of Cases (Recent Constitutional Jurisprudence)

Cases such as:

1. Pankaj Bansal
2. Prabir Purkayastha
3. Vihaan Kumar
4. Mihir Rajesh Shah
5. Kasireddy Upender Reddy

emphasize that failure to communicate grounds of arrest violates Articles 21 and 22(1), rendering the arrest illegal and vitiating subsequent remand orders.

Key Findings of the Court

The High Court observed that if the recent judgments are interpreted literally without limitation, accused persons could challenge detention through Habeas Corpus even after filing of charge-sheet, framing of charges, rejection of bail applications, or during trial, creating uncertainty in criminal proceedings.

To reconcile the conflicting streams of precedent, the Court held:

1. A challenge to the legality of initial arrest and remand through Habeas Corpus can ordinarily be maintained only till the stage of investigation and before cognizance is taken on the police report.
2. Once investigation is completed, charge-sheet is filed, and cognizance is taken, the initial remand order loses its operative significance.
3. Subsequent judicial orders such as cognizance, committal, framing of charge and remand under Section 309 Cr.P.C. constitute independent judicial orders.
4. Thereafter, the accused must avail appropriate statutory remedies such as bail, discharge, quashing, revision or other remedies available under law.

Decision

Since:

1. The petitioner had been arrested more than two years earlier;
2. Charges had already been framed;
3. Trial had commenced;
4. Witnesses were being examined; and
5. The petitioner was in custody under judicial orders passed during trial,

the Court held that the Habeas Corpus petition was not maintainable and declined to interfere.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant because it attempts to harmonize recent Supreme Court decisions concerning illegal arrest and communication of grounds of arrest with earlier Constitution Bench and larger Bench decisions governing Habeas Corpus jurisdiction. The Allahabad High Court has indicated that while constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 remain paramount, challenges to initial arrest through Habeas Corpus must ordinarily be raised before cognizance is taken, and cannot be permitted to unsettle criminal proceedings after the trial has substantially progressed.

Prepared for: Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Practice Area: Criminal Law | Constitutional Law | Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction | Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India.

Find Judgement https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadJudgmentDocument.do?judgmentID=13439719 https://t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/354

https://youtu.be/6P6yaIm0slc