Court Applies Prejudice-Oriented Test and Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition, Holding Accused Fully Aware of Charges; Emphasizes Substance Over Formalities in Article 22(1) Rights
In a significant judgment delivered on October 30, 2026, the Patna High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Rana Vikram Singh) dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh challenging the arrest and continued judicial custody of his son, Divya Prakash. The petitioner's key contention was that the arrest was illegal due to non-supply of written grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and relevant statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The Court meticulously analyzed the facts and legal precedents and concluded that Divya Prakash was a named accused in FIR No. 27/2026 registered at Chitragupt Nagar Police Station, Bihar, and was fully aware of the accusations against him. He had filed anticipatory bail applications, sought recall of a non-bailable warrant, and was legally represented at the time of judicial remand. The accused's counsel appeared through video conferencing and actively opposed the remand, demonstrating substantive knowledge of the case.
The Court relied heavily on the recent Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark rulings in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026), Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India (2026), and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), which emphasized a "prejudice-oriented test." This test assesses whether the procedural lapse in furnishing the written grounds of arrest results in demonstrable prejudice to the accused. The Patna High Court noted that mere non-compliance with the formal requirement of serving written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal or justify release if the accused has substantive awareness of the grounds and no prejudice is caused.
The Court further stressed that Article 22(1) is a constitutional safeguard intended to inform the arrested person of the basis of arrest to enable effective defense, bail applications, or habeas corpus petitions. However, the Court clarified that this safeguard should not become a formalistic ritual divorced from the factual context. It held that judgments on non-supply of grounds of arrest must be applied considering the surrounding facts and not mechanically.
Addressing the petitioner's allegations of illegal judicial remand, the Court observed that the remand order was well-written, and there was no denial that the accused's counsel appeared and opposed the remand through online mode. The Court also took note of the petitioner's conduct and multiple litigations but refrained from passing strictures on the counsel involved, highlighting that procedural errors in filing did not impact the merits.
Finally, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner for wasting judicial time and directed the deposit of the same within two weeks, failing which recovery proceedings may be initiated.
The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that arrests and custodial orders are not to be overturned merely on procedural technicalities in the absence of prejudice, especially when the accused is well informed and represented.
This judgment contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on the constitutional rights of arrested persons under the BNSS, 2023, and the interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, balancing individual liberties with effective criminal justice administration.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus seeking release on ground of non-supply of written grounds of arrest - Where accused was a named accused in FIR, had moved anticipatory bail, had sought recall of non-bailable warrant, and was represented by counsel at remand stage, Court held he was fully aware of grounds of arrest - Applying prejudice-oriented test, mere alleged procedural lapse in not furnishing written grounds of arrest would not by itself render custody illegal or justify release.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India; Sections 36, 47, 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 108, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3012536
