Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32281 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (Cr.) No. 653 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Sadhu Sharan Singh, resident of Naya Bazaar, Lakhisarai, P.O. Lakhisarai, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai (Bihar) --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau 2. The Additional Directorate General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi having its office at Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Officer-in-Charge, Anti-Corruption Bureau Police Station, Ranchi, having its office at Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: M/s Indrajit Sinha, Rishav Kumar, Sonal Sodhani, Advocates For the Resp.-ACB: Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate --- --- 05 / 17.10.2025 Petitioner-Ajay Kumar Singh has filed this writ application for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly a writ of mandamus to hold and declare the arrest of his brother Binay Kumar Singh illegal, in connection with Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, and thereupon direct his release forthwith. Petitioner has further prayed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the Investigating Officer of Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025. 2. The petitioner happens to be the brother of the detenu Binay Kumar Singh who was arrested in connection with Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 on 25.09.2025. 3. Case of the petitioner is that his brother Binay Kumar Singh is an accused in connection with ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to sections 318, 336,340,316,45 and 49 read with section61(2) of BNS) and sections 7(c), 12 and 13(2) read with sections 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. 4. Binay Kumar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 by the Court of Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi with a specific direction to cooperate 2 with the investigation. Binay Kumar Singh was served with a notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 24.09.2025, whereby he was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 25.09.2025 at 11.00 a.m. In compliance of the said notice, he duly appeared before the Dy. S.P.-cum- Investigating Officer, ACB, Ranchi on 25.09.2025. Binay Kumar Singh was made to remain in the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi from 11.30 a.m. till 7.00 p.m. and subsequently, he was taken into custody by Anti-Corruption Bureau in connection with Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, which was registered on the same day i.e. 25.09.2025. It is further case of the petitioner that neither the family members of the accused, nor his Advocate were made aware of the grounds of his arrest or the reason for taking him into custody which renders the arrest of Binay Kumar Singh illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. Petitioner has pleaded that Binay Kumar Singh had fully cooperated with the investigation before the Anti- Corruption Bureau pursuant to the notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025. On this ground, it was prayed that the arrest of Binay Kumar Singh be declared illegal and he be released forthwith. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand through ACB has filed counter affidavit. State has raised objection towards the maintainability of this writ application which has been filed by the petitioner Ajay Kumar Singh who happens to be the brother of the detenu Binay Kumar Singh who is named accused in Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025. It has been pleaded that the present writ application is a representative petition and this application is permissible only under the jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus and the same is vested in the Division Bench in terms of Jharkhand High Court Rules and as such, petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ application. It has further been stated that the petitioner has been apprehended in connection with Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 which was instituted prior to the arrest of the brother of the petitioner. This case was instituted under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7(c), 12 and 13(2) read with sections 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. It has also been pleaded that the FIR has been registered for the offences punishable for more than seven years and as such, the Police Officer has the power to effect arrest without issuance of notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has also been pleaded that the ground of arrest of the detenu Binay Kumar Singh was 3 communicated in writing to the person nominated by the detenu at the time of his arrest. The name of the person is Sadanand Mahto and his signature bears on the Arrest Memo. The Police Party have also affixed Memo of his Arrest outside the house of detenu, as will be evident from the Station Diary Entry of Ranchi (ACB) Police Station. As such, there is compliance of section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. On these grounds, it was prayed that the arrest of detenu Binay Kumar Singh was legal and accordingly, this writ application be dismissed. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the arrest of the brother of the petitioner smacks of malafide. It was submitted that the ground of arrest of the brother of the petitioner is very perfunctory and there is no direct evidence against him with regard to the alleged offences. It was also submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is with regard to the offences which are punishable for less than seven years and as such, issuance of notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was mandatory. It was also submitted that the brother of the petitioner in a related offence has been granted anticipatory bail in ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025. Accordingly, it was prayed that the arrest of the detenu Binay Kumar Singh be declared illegal and he be released forthwith. 7. Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-ACB, has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this writ application. He submitted that the offence alleged also involves section 467 of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable with a term extending to imprisonment for life and as such, issuance of notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was not required. It was further submitted that the grounds of arrest of the detenu was handed over to one Sadanand Mahto who was the person nominated by the detenu and as such, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of the rights of the detenu under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It was finally submitted that the detenu was apprehended after institution of the FIR. On these grounds, it was prayed that this writ application be dismissed as there is no illegality in the arrest of the detenu Binay Kumar Singh. 8. The contention of the ACB that only a writ of Habeas Corpus could be maintainable in the present case and not a writ of mandamus, as prayed for, has been refuted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in 4 the case of V. Senthil Balaji Versus State represented by Deputy Director reported in [(2024) 3 SCC 51], wherein it has been held as under: “28. A writ of habeas corpus shall be only issued when the detention is illegal. As a matter of rule, an order of remand by a judicial officer, culminating into a judicial function cannot be challenged by way of a writ of habeas corpus, while it is open to the person aggrieved to seek other statutory remedies. When there is a non-compliance of the mandatory provisions along with a total non-application of mind, there may be a case for entertaining a writ of habeas corpus and that too by way of a challenge.” 9. In view of the aforesaid decision, where the writ petitioner has challenged the arrest of the detenu on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions, this court is of the opinion that this writ application is maintainable. 10. It is an admitted case that the detenu Binay Kumar Singh was arrested after institution of the First Information Report being Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025. It is not a case that the detenu Binay Kumar Singh was arrested and subsequently, FIR of the aforesaid case was filed. Had this been a case, then the entire action of the Respondents would have smacked of malafide and malice. Respondents were well within their rights to arrest the detenu as the offences alleged were non-bailable in nature. Issuance of notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was also not warranted as the offence under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with a term extending to imprisonment for life. From the record, it appears that the grounds of arrest of the detenu was handed over to Sadanand Mahto, a person nominated by him. Grounds of arrest was also affixed in front of the house of the detenu and as such, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of the rights of the detenu under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the arrest of the detenu Binay Kumar Singh in connection with Hazaribag P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) October 17, 2025 Ranjeet/