HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 269 of 2026 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA for State-respondents and perused the material on record. 2. The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce and release the corpus/petitioner No. 1 from their illegal custody in Case Crime No.270 of 2025, under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S. Police Station-Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, while declaring the arrest, detention and remand of the petitioner No. 1 as illegal, null and void for not following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another as well as Umang Rastogi and another vs. State of U.P. and others. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the remand order dated 08.02.2026 in Case Crime No.270 of 2025, under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S. Police Station-Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar and subsequent remand orders passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to initiate departmental enquiry upon the actions of errant police officials of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Atisham Hussain And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent no. 1. iv. Issue any other writ, order or direction of suitable nature, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. V. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 08.02.2026, petitioner no.1 was illegally arrested. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 failed to comply with the mandatory constitutional requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner no.1 in writing, which is evident from the arrest memo itself. The petitioner no.1 was neither supplied written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest nor prior to his production before the learned Remand Magistrate, thereby vitiating the arrest and subsequent remand. The Apex Court recently in Mihir Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 has categorically held that communication of grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory in all offences and that non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal. He has also relied upon the judgement and order passed by this Court in the case of Umang Rastogi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and three others, passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.35 of 2026. Finally it has been pointed out that remand order dated 8.2.2026 has been passed by learned Magistrate on printed proforma. 4. Learned AGA for State-respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. After considering the above arguments and judgement relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the arrest of petitioner no.1 and the remand order passed by the Magistrate dated 8.2.2026 are illegal. This Apex Court in Gautam Navlakha Vs. N.Ι.Α., (2022) 13 SCC 542 has held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where the remand is absolutely illegal or passed mechanically. 6. The aforesaid remand order and arrest memo prepared by the HABC No. 269 of 2026 2 respondent no.3 dated 8.2.2026 are hereby quashed. 7. The above noted habeas corpus writ petition is allowed. 8. Petitioner no.1 is directed to be released from custody forthwith without waiting for supply of the certified copy of this order. 9. Office is directed to issue certified copy of this order to the petitioner no.1 on payment of usual charges. 10. Keeping in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Umang Rastogi (supra), the Commissioner of Police, District Kanpur Nagar, respondent no.2, is directed to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Investigating Officer of this case and submit compliance report before Registrar (Compliance) of this Court on or before 30.3.2026 to be kept on record. 11. The Remand Magistrate is directed be cautious in future while passing remand orders. 12. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the police official and the Remand Magistrate aforesaid and District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, within 24 hours. 13. It is open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner no.1 afresh in accordance with law. March 19, 2026 Ruchi Agrahari HABC No. 269 of 2026 3 (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad