Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Mahendragarh Magistrate, Haryana: In an application under Section 175(3), Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking registration of FIR against police officials for allegedly unlawfully abducting and detaining the complainant’s husband overnight, the Single Bench of Vikrant, ACJ., held that the arrest was unlawful and his custody illegal, as no cognizable offence had occurred, no apprehension of disturbance of public peace existed, and the requirements for preventive arrest under the said provisions had not been satisfied. The Court further found that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to Deepak, in violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 BNSS. Accordingly, the Court directed immediate registration of FIR against the erring police officials, including the ASI , under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 198 and 351(2), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Background
The complainant petitioner, filed an application under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking registration of FIR against police officials, including the ASI , alleging that her husband, Deepak, had been forcibly taken and detained overnight. The police stated that Deepak and his friend were apprehended under Sections 126/170 BNSS on 17 September 2026 following a verbal altercation at Balaji Chowk. On 18 September 2026, ASI admitted that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to Deepak or his family and that no intimation had been given to the SDJM or SDM.
Analysis and decision
The Court issued notice to the SHO, Mahendragarh, (historically called Mohindargarh) seeking a report and CCTV footage. ASI appeared after two hours but failed to disclose the particulars of the case or the nature of the complaint under which Deepak was arrested. He admitted that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to Deepak or his family and that no intimation had been given to the SDJM or SDM, despite Deepak and his friend having been detained under Sections 126/170 BNSS. At 3:30 pm, ASI submitted a detailed report stating that the police station’s CCTV cameras had been non-functional for a year, despite a letter sent to the SP on 30 January 2026 seeking their repair.
The Court examined the police report concerning Complaint No. 684-5D, dated 17 September 2026, lodged by Harish regarding a verbal altercation at Balaji Chowk, Mahendragarh, after Deepak’s scooty allegedly touched Harish’s motorcycle. The Court noted that ASI had called both parties to the police station, attempted to pacify them, and thereafter arrested Deepak and his friend under Sections 126/170 BNSS, apprehending the commission of a cognizable offence. However, the arrest forms did not record that the grounds of arrest had been furnished, family members informed, or the arrested persons apprised of their right to furnish bonds. Upon examining Deepak separately after the police officials had been sent out of the courtroom, the Court recorded his allegations that he had been forcibly detained on Harish’s instructions and tortured by ASI and other police officials. Deepak further alleged that Harish, claiming to be an employee of , IPS, had threatened him in the name of his employer, that the police had torn his written complaint against Harish, and that the CIA staff had removed his clothes and beaten him.
The Court further noted that PSI, CIA Staff, Mahendragarh, appeared and denied beating Deepak, but produced Rohit without any direction from the Court. the CIA staff stated that Deepak’s friend had been released during the night after Deepak admitted that he was not involved, which contradicted the report of IO ASI and the zimni entry bearing GD No. 60, dated 17 September 2026, which recorded that Rohit had been released from police lock-up on account of illness. The Court observed that an arrest without immediate communication about the precise grounds of arrest violated fundamental constitutional safeguards and held that such arrest was void ab initio, rendering the subsequent custody wholly vitiated and unlawful.
The Court reiterated that failure to immediately communicate the precise grounds of arrest violated Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 BNSS, rendering the arrest void ab initio and subsequent custody unlawful. “The immediate consequence of a failure to furnish written grounds within the timeline is the complete vitiation of custody, entitling the detenu to be set at liberty immediately.”
The Court found that Deepak and Rohit had prima facie been arrested unlawfully and that his friend was set free for personal reasons whereas Deepak was kept in the lock-up. The Court noted that no cognizable offence had occurred, no apprehension of disturbance of public peace existed, and no order under Section 126 BNSS had been obtained. The Court further observed that, in the absence of any report that Deepak was planning to commit a cognizable offence, the police were not competent to arrest him under Section 170 BNSS, rendering his arrest unlawful and custody illegal.
The Court therefore found a valid reason to report the offence and to direct FIR registration against the erring police officials, and thus directed the SHO, PS City, Mahendragarh, to immediately register FIR under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 198 and 351(2) BNS against the erring police officials, including the ASI , and submit a compliance report the same day. The Superintendent of Police, Mahendragarh, was requested to supervise the investigation and, if possible, depute a police official not below the rank of DSP to investigate the matter in accordance with law.
[Asha Yadav v. SHO, 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Haryana) 2, decided on 18-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Sant Kumar Yadav and Manav Kumar, Advocates
