Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held that the appropriate legal remedy for contesting arrest and detention lies in a habeas corpus petition and not under writs of mandamus or certiorari. The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking relief against the alleged illegal arrest and custodial treatment of an individual detained under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Bench noted that although allegations regarding non-compliance with constitutional safeguards were raised, the appropriate forum for such challenge is a habeas corpus proceeding before a Division Bench, in accordance with the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta. Accordingly, the writ petition was held not maintainable in its present form and was dismissed.

The writ petition was filed by the mother of Abhijit Chakroborty, who had been arrested in connection with Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case No. 21 dated 12.02.2025, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner alleged that the arrest was conducted by officers from Bidhannagar (North) Police Station on 19.04.2025 in front of Kasba Police Station. According to the petition, while the arrest-inspection memo was provided to the accused, his relatives were not informed, and the grounds of arrest were inadequately conveyed, allegedly in violation of established legal norms.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

The petitioner submitted that the accused was subjected to custodial assault resulting in physical injuries. Despite presenting this information through a petition before the Learned ACJM, Bidhannagar, on 28.04.2025, the Magistrate rejected the bail application. The petitioner claimed this was in disregard of constitutional and legal safeguards and requested that the arrest be declared illegal and that the Investigating Officer (Respondent No. 6) be issued a show cause notice regarding the alleged custodial torture.

The petitioner relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments to substantiate the claims, particularly citing Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others (2024) 7 SCC 576, where the Supreme Court underscored the necessity of providing written grounds of arrest to ensure compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PMLA.

Attention was also drawn to Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, stating that merely stating formal reasons in the arrest memo does not fulfill the constitutional requirement of furnishing personal and case-specific grounds of arrest.

The petitioner further relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269), where the Supreme Court held that the duty to inform the grounds of arrest is an inviolable constitutional mandate and that failure to comply renders the arrest illegal.

On behalf of the State, senior counsel submitted that the petitioner’s challenge was not sustainable as the legality of arrest and subsequent remand was subject to judicial scrutiny by a competent Magistrate. It was argued that since the Magistrate had exercised judicial discretion in denying bail, the High Court could not interfere through writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The State cited V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2024) 3 SCC 51 to argue that habeas corpus may lie only where detention is wholly illegal and not when authorized by a Magistrate. Prominance was placed on the observation that judicial remand constitutes valid custody and may not be challenged through a writ unless jurisdictional errors are manifest.

The State further invoked Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Vivek V. Gawde 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722, and Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 for administrative and judicial decisions unless there exists a self-evident error or manifest injustice.

The respondent argued that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy before the appropriate statutory forum and that bypassing this route to invoke Article 226 was impermissible in light of precedent, including Indrani Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal 2014 SCC Online Cal 17573.

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh noted, "The petitioner’s main contention is that the accused was arrested... however, none of his relatives were informed regarding his arrest and the grounds of arrest which was handed over to him were in gross violation of the settled proposition of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

The Court examined the judgments relied upon by both parties and recorded: "On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed upon Pankaj Bansal (supra), Prabir Purkayastha (supra), Vihaan Kumar (supra)... the petitioner thus intended to impress the Court that there has been a violation in the grounds which has been assigned while arresting the accused..."

However, the Court also recorded the State’s argument that: "A Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable when the Magistrate authorizes detention of an accused in custody as the Magistrate exercises his discretion available to him and it is for the Magistrate to decide the question of custody."

It was further noted: "The Rules of the High Court at Calcutta prescribes that a Habeas Corpus petition is to be preferred before a Division Bench. As such, the Writ Petition in its present form is not maintainable."

In evaluating the claim of non-compliance with Article 22(1), the Court acknowledged the legal position laid down in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 2025 INSC 768, stating that: "The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)... When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested."

Nonetheless, the Court clarified: "The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy... has authoritatively clarified that the appropriate recourse for challenging arrest and detention is through a writ of Habeas Corpus. Consequently, the present prayers stand misconceived in law."

Also Read: Madras HC : Theatres Can’t Fleece Moviegoers | Overpricing Tickets After New Releases Will Attract Action And Refund Orders

The Court issued its conclusive findings in the following terms:

"Having duly considered the pleadings, submissions of counsel, and the legal position emerging from precedents cited before this Court, I am not inclined to entertain the reliefs claimed under writs of Mandamus and Certiorari."

"The Rules of the High Court at Calcutta prescribes that a Habeas Corpus petition is to be preferred before a Division Bench. As such, the Writ Petition in its present form is not maintainable."

"Accordingly, W.P.A. No. 9324 of 2025 is dismissed."

"Pending connected application(s), if any, are also disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sourav Bhattacharyya, Advocate; Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Advocate; Ms. Anoushka Das, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Senior Advocate; Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Additional Government Pleader; Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Senior Standing Counsel; Mrs. Sabnam De Bardhan, Junior Government Advocate; Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Advocate; Mr. Diptendu Narayan Bandopadhyay, Advocate; Mrs. Kakali Naskar, Advocate

Case Title: Kamala Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.A. No. 9324 of 2025

Bench: Justice Tirthankar Ghosh

[Read/Download order]