Chandigarh, June 3: The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of Jobanpreet Singh, observing that once an accused has been produced before a competent court and remanded to judicial custody, a writ of habeas corpus is ordinarily not maintainable.
Justice Alok Jain passed the order while dealing with a petition filed by Mukhwant Singh, who alleged that his son, Jobanpreet Singh, had been illegally detained by Punjab Police in connection with FIR No. 90 dated May 30, 2026 registered at Police Station Majitha, Amritsar Rural.
The petitioner contended that the detenue had been picked up from his residence during the early hours of May 31 and that the arrest was carried out in violation of Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It was argued that the police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest and that the subsequent remand proceedings could not cure the alleged illegality committed at the initial stage.
Reliance was placed on recent Supreme Court decisions, including Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana, to contend that failure to comply with constitutional safeguards governing arrest would vitiate the entire process.
Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the detenue was arrested on May 31, 2026, in accordance with law and was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day. The State further argued that police remand had been granted by the Magistrate and, thereafter, the detenue had been remanded to judicial custody. Consequently, the custody could not be termed illegal for the purpose of maintaining a habeas corpus petition.
The State also raised an objection that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by not disclosing the remand proceedings while pursuing the habeas corpus petition. According to the State, any grievance regarding alleged procedural violations during arrest could be raised before the appropriate forum but could not justify issuance of a writ of habeas corpus once judicial custody had intervened.
During the proceedings, the High Court examined the constitutional protections contained in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and referred to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the right of an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest. However, the Court also considered the settled principle that habeas corpus jurisdiction is generally unavailable where detention is pursuant to a valid judicial order passed by a competent court.
The Court noted that the detenue had been produced before the Magistrate, police remand had been granted, and later converted into judicial custody. In such circumstances, the legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards could be examined in appropriate proceedings, but the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus could not be invoked as a substitute for other legal remedies.
Accordingly, the High Court declined to grant the relief sought and dismissed the petition.