Rajasthan HC Dismisses Habeas Corpus Over ACB Arrest, Flags Serious Non-Compliance With Grounds-of-Arrest Mandate

The Rajasthan High Court found the Anti-Corruption Bureau failed to communicate grounds of arrest to Dr. Mahesh Joshi in writing, but held habeas corpus could not lie once multiple judicial remand orders had been passed by the Special Judge.

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, on 12 June 2026 dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Rohit Joshi, son of Dr. Mahesh Joshi, challenging the latter's arrest by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 7 May 2026. The bench, led by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain (with Justice Uma Shanker Vyas), recorded a clear finding that the ACB had not communicated the grounds of arrest to Dr. Mahesh Joshi or his family in writing as required by Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Despite that finding, the court held that successive judicial remand orders passed by the Special Judge foreclosed the habeas corpus remedy. The bench directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General and to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, and called for training of police and judicial officers on the Supreme Court's directions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana: (2025) 5 SCC 799.

The Arrest and the Petition Before the High Court

The Anti-Corruption Bureau registered FIR No. 245/2024 on 30 October 2024 against Dr. Mahesh Joshi under Sections 7(c), 12, 13(1)(a) read with Sections 13(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), and several provisions of the IPC including Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B. Dr. Mahesh Joshi was arrested at 7:45 a.m. on 7 May 2026.

His son, Rohit Joshi, filed D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 171/2026 on 19 May 2026, contending that neither the detenue nor any family member was informed of the grounds of arrest before or after the arrest, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. The petition also challenged the process of arrest itself as illegal.

At the time of Dr. Mahesh Joshi's production before the Special Judge (PC Act Cases) No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I on 7 May 2026, his counsel filed an application (Annexure-2) specifically raising non-compliance with the directions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana. The Special Judge, without deciding that application, granted a police custody remand till 11 May 2026. The application was eventually decided on 8 June 2026 by the Special Judge (PC Act Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, resulting in its dismissal — more than 31 days after the arrest.

The petitioner also pointed out that the Enforcement Directorate had registered a case on the predicate offence and that Dr. Mahesh Joshi had been granted bail in those proceedings, attending all court dates without any allegation of influencing prosecution evidence.

The ACB's Shifting Account and the Fabrication Allegation

The ACB filed a preliminary reply on 11 May 2026 and a detailed reply on 14 May 2026. The bench noted a material inconsistency between the two. In the first reply, the ACB stated that Dr. Mahesh Joshi himself was informed of the grounds of arrest. In the detailed reply, the ACB claimed that two Additional Superintendents of Police — Shri Bhupendra and Shri Himanshu — had reached Dr. Mahesh Joshi's residence at 4:15 a.m. on 7 May 2026 and informed the family members of the reasons for taking him to ACB Headquarters. This fact did not appear in the preliminary reply or in the remand papers submitted on 7 May 2026.

The bench observed that the arrest memo was prepared in the presence of two constables and a head constable, and that no memo on record showed the formal handover of Dr. Mahesh Joshi from the two Additional SPs who detained him at his residence to Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Additional SP, who is the third respondent. The bench stated that it could “safely say that these are manipulated facts by the ACB.”

The petitioner also alleged that a document dated 6 May 2026 — a Hukumnama authorising Shri Bhupendra and Shri Himanshu to act — was fabricated, and that the officer who issued it was not a superior of the Investigating Officer. The bench noted this allegation but declined to go into the details of the alleged fabrication, keeping the issue expressly open for future proceedings.

On the signatures obtained on the memo under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, the bench held that those signatures had no evidentiary value because they were obtained when Dr. Mahesh Joshi was already at ACB Headquarters and in police custody.

The Legal Framework: Section 47 BNSS and Article 22(1)

The bench set out the text of Section 47 of the BNSS, which requires every police officer arresting a person without warrant to “forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”

Drawing on the Supreme Court's directions in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra: 2025 INSC 1288, the bench reproduced the four-part mandate: the constitutional requirement to inform the arrestee of grounds of arrest applies to all offences under all statutes; grounds must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands; if oral communication is unavoidable at the moment of arrest, written grounds must follow within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours before production for remand; and non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

The bench also relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India: (2024) 7 SCC 576, which held that failure to supply grounds of arrest in writing renders the arrest illegal and invalid, and on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi): (2024) 8 SCC 254, which reiterated that grounds must be furnished in writing without exception at the earliest opportunity.

The bench drew a distinction, following Prabir Purkayastha, between the “reason of arrest” and the “ground of arrest.” The ACB had only mentioned the offences registered against Dr. Mahesh Joshi. The bench held that the ACB was required to specify the particular acts of the accused, his role and involvement, and the circumstances that compelled the arrest — none of which appeared in any document on record.

The bench expressed serious concern: “We have very serious doubt about the understanding of police in the State of Rajasthan” regarding the basic fundamentals of grounds of arrest.

Why the Special Judge's Conduct Drew Criticism

The bench found that the Special Judge who received the application on 7 May 2026 had a clear duty under the directions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana to ascertain compliance with Article 22(1) before authorising remand. The Supreme Court had stated in that case that because non-compliance renders an arrest illegal, a Magistrate cannot remand an arrestee after the arrest has been rendered illegal, and that all courts are obligated to uphold fundamental rights.

Instead, the Special Judge kept the application pending, later recused himself, and the matter was transferred to another court. The transferred court dismissed the application on 8 June 2026, 31 days after the arrest, by which time several further remand orders had been passed. The bench stated it failed to understand why compliance had not been ensured at the first remand stage, given the explicit Supreme Court direction.

Why the Habeas Corpus Petition Could Not Succeed

Despite its findings on non-compliance, the bench held that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable at this stage. The State relied on State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee (Criminal Appeal No. 1124/2018, decided 5 September 2018 by a three-judge bench), which held that a High Court should be reluctant to enter upon the merits of an arrest where the detenue is in custody under a judicial order of remand that has not been challenged. The State also relied on V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023, which held that a writ of habeas corpus lies only when detention is illegal, and that a judicial remand order must be challenged through statutory remedies rather than by habeas corpus.

The bench accepted this position. It reasoned that the grounds of non-compliance had been raised before the Special Judge on 7 May 2026, but the Special Judge had neither ensured compliance nor decided the application before passing the remand order. By the time the habeas corpus petition was filed on 19 May 2026, multiple authorisation orders for detention had been passed. The court held that in those circumstances it was not possible to consider the legality of the arrest under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The bench also noted a recent coordinate Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Neeraj and another v. State of UP and another: Habeas Corpus Petition No. 218 of 2026, which had similarly declined to declare an arrest illegal on the ground that no grounds of arrest were communicated.

On the argument that the petitioner had no other remedy, the bench noted that the Special Judge had decided the application on 8 June 2026 and that the petitioner was free to challenge that order in accordance with law.

Directions on Training and Institutional Compliance

Before closing, the bench directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice through the Registrar General, and also be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan. The bench stated that police officers and judicial officers of the State require training on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra so that compliance with Article 22(1) is made meaningfully at the initial stage of arrest.

Outcome

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 171/2026 was dismissed along with any pending applications. The bench recorded a finding of non-compliance with the mandatory grounds-of-arrest requirement but held that successive judicial remand orders barred the habeas corpus remedy. The issue of alleged fabrication of the Hukumnama dated 6 May 2026 was kept expressly open. The order was directed to the Registrar General and to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, for compliance with the training direction.