Case Background
The criminal writ petition was filed by a woman related to one Saket Bhushan, described in the writ as her “maternal devar”. She approached the Patna High Court under its criminal writ jurisdiction seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
According to her, Saket Bhushan was arrested on 31.01.2021 at about 8:30 pm from “Patna Tyre Mall” near “Saguna Morh” in connection with a murder case. She alleged that he was arrested either by officials of Khagaul Police Station or by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Her main grievance was that, immediately after this alleged arrest, Saket Bhushan was not produced before a Judicial Magistrate and that even after 24 hours of his arrest no production was made. On this basis she claimed that his arrest and detention were illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.
The petitioner sought a declaration that Saket Bhushan’s detention was illegal, a direction to the State of Bihar to produce him before the Court, and compensation for his alleged illegal detention. She also complained that a Pulsar motorcycle connected with him had not been produced before the court of the ACJM, Patna City and sought relief regarding that vehicle as well.
The writ petition was filed on 31.08.2021 and registered on 05.04.2021. The State filed a counter affidavit on 08.10.2021 through the City Superintendent of Police (Central), Patna, raising a preliminary objection to maintainability and disputing the facts of alleged arrest and detention.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Khatim Reza heard the matter and first recorded the petitioner’s version. Her counsel argued that the arrest and continued detention of Saket Bhushan, without production before the Magistrate within 24 hours, violated Sections 41A, 41B, 41D, 50, 50A and 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It was submitted that breach of these provisions amounts to an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and that the victim of such illegal detention is entitled to compensation. On this basis, counsel argued that Saket Bhushan deserved Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for illegal arrest, illegal detention, humiliation, mental torture and harm to reputation. The non-production of the motorcycle before the ACJM, Patna City was also cited as a grievance. A Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court dated 22.12.2020 in CWJC No. 333 of 2020 was relied upon.
The Court then turned to the State’s detailed counter affidavit. The State’s stand was that Saket Bhushan was never arrested by Khagaul Police Station in any case, nor was he in custody or detention as alleged. According to the State, he was brought by a police officer of Shastrinagar Police Station on 02.02.2021 at 21:45 hours only for enquiry in connection with a murder case—Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021 relating to the killing of Rupesh Kumar Singh, an airport station manager of Indigo.
The State asserted that after enquiry, Saket Bhushan left the police station on 03.02.2021 at 18:00 hours safely and without grievance, after executing a bond in the presence of a witness. In that bond, he stated that he was leaving safely for his house after recording his statement. Both he and a witness, Manoranjan Kumar, signed the bond voluntarily, and a Station Diary (SD) entry no. 90 dated 03.02.2021 at 18:00 hours recorded this fact.
The counter affidavit also described the background of the murder investigation. A Special Investigation Team had been constituted to probe the murder of Rupesh Kumar Singh. The SIT scrutinised CCTV footage and found that a white Apache and a black Pulsar motorcycle were used in the offence. Through analysis of call detail records and CCTV footage, the SIT traced the suspects’ path and formed a belief that they had come from Alka Colony.
In the course of this enquiry, police learnt that Saket Bhushan lived in Alka Colony, possessed a black Pulsar motorcycle and had a criminal history, including earlier remand in a criminal case. Based on this suspicion, the SIT and Shastrinagar Police kept watch for him and other suspects.
On 02.02.2021 at 17:00 hours, a Sub-Inspector from Shastrinagar P.S., according to Station Diary Entry No. 58, went out on evening patrolling, vehicle checking and raids in connection with Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021, along with armed police. He returned at 21:45 hours, bringing Saket Bhushan and one Rishiraj for interrogation and enquiry in the murder case, along with a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. BR01DH-5153, which was in Saket Bhushan’s possession.
The persons produced could not show papers of the motorcycle when asked. The vehicle was therefore kept safely at Shastrinagar Police Station premises for verification of its registered owner. During interrogation, Saket Bhushan allegedly admitted his closeness to the prime accused Rituraj and gave details of Rituraj’s visit to his residence on 12.01.2021 between 09:00 to 09:30 hours on a white Apache motorcycle with one friend Chhotu. He also provided further information about Rituraj, which the Court notes was detailed in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. Rituraj was arrested on 02.02.2021 itself and, according to the State, confessed his role and his regular visits to the residence of Saket Bhushan.
The State therefore justified bringing Saket Bhushan to the police station and interrogating him in the murder case. It asserted specifically, with reference to Station Diary Entry No. 66, that he was brought for interrogation at 21:45 hours on 02.02.2021 and left the police station at 18:00 hours on 03.02.2021 after signing a bond, recorded in Entry No. 90. The State denied that he was detained for more than 24 hours.
The petitioner, in her reply, repeated that Saket Bhushan had in fact been arrested on 30.01.2021 even though no case had been registered against him then. She alleged that the police had taken his signature on a blank paper, later converted into the personal bond, and claimed there was manipulation of Station Diary entries. She also stated that Saket Bhushan had sent an email on 23.09.2021 seeking release of the Pulsar motorcycle. She relied on some newspaper clippings, which the State labelled unauthentic.
From the pleadings, the Division Bench first highlighted a crucial fact: there was no dispute that, on the date of filing the criminal writ application, Saket Bhushan was not in detention or custody. Yet the main relief sought was a writ of habeas corpus—a writ meant to challenge present illegal detention and to secure immediate release.
The Court also referred to an earlier order of a co-ordinate Bench dated 16.11.2021. On that date the Bench had noted that the State could not explain under which legal provision the motorcycle had been seized and retained. The petitioner was then allowed to add the concerned Station House Officer and Sub-Inspector Din Dayal Singh as respondents, and the State was directed to file a counter affidavit about the seizure and detention of the motorcycle.
From this order, the present Bench inferred that the co-ordinate Bench had not found the State’s stand on alleged illegal detention of Saket Bhushan unsatisfactory. The focus of further enquiry was mainly on the motorcycle.
In the subsequent counter affidavit, the Station House Officer stated that since Saket Bhushan had produced no papers of the motorcycle, it remained at the police station only for verification of ownership. A letter had been sent on 13.02.2021 to the District Transport Officer, Patna seeking verification. According to the respondents, neither the petitioner nor Saket Bhushan approached the police station with ownership papers.
On 23.11.2021, a verification report dated 29.09.2021 was received from the District Transport Officer confirming that the petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle. On the same day, 23.11.2021, the petitioner was informed that she could receive the vehicle and that it was up to her to do so.
The State’s counsel then raised the legal objection before the Division Bench that, since Saket Bhushan was admittedly not in illegal detention or police custody on the date of filing the writ petition, the habeas corpus petition itself was not maintainable.
The Court agreed. It held that, on the basis of the materials on record, the petitioner had failed to prove that Saket Bhushan had been kept in police custody for more than 24 hours after being brought to the police station. Without proof of illegal detention, the foundation of a habeas corpus petition collapsed.
Consequently, the Bench ruled that the criminal writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable and deserved dismissal. Once this finding was reached, the claim for monetary compensation in writ jurisdiction, which depended on establishing illegal detention, also could not survive.
The Court then examined the motorcycle issue. It noted that, by the petitioner’s own admission, she had for the first time in September 2022 written to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna for handing over the Pulsar motorcycle. The Court pointed out that there was no explanation for waiting so long to assert her right over the vehicle and that she had not disputed the respondents’ case that nobody had earlier presented ownership papers to the police.
In the Bench’s view, the petitioner had failed to show that there was any formal “seizure” of the motorcycle by the police. The person in possession was merely asked to show ownership documents, which he did not have. According to the Court, the respondents’ case was that he was simply asked to produce the papers and the motorcycle was kept for verification.
The judges further held that questions about release of the motorcycle could not properly be decided in a writ petition seeking habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They were not inclined to go deeper into the motorcycle dispute, especially in light of the State’s stand and the subsequent verification that ownership belonged to the petitioner, who had been informed she could take the vehicle.
On this reasoning, the Division Bench concluded that there was no merit in the writ application and dismissed it.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment shows that the Patna High Court will treat a habeas corpus petition as a serious and focused remedy. It is meant only for present illegal detention, not for past grievances where the person is already free.
For families who believe someone has been illegally picked up by police, this decision underlines the importance of clear evidence of current custody and unlawfulness. Newspaper reports or mere allegations, without supporting material, may not be enough to get habeas corpus relief or compensation.
The judgment also signals that disputes about vehicles kept in police stations, especially where documents were not initially shown, are separate issues. They are not usually decided in a habeas corpus case and may require different legal steps.
Overall, the ruling reinforces that compensation for illegal detention through writ jurisdiction depends on first proving that such illegal detention actually occurred, on the record.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Was the criminal writ petition for habeas corpus maintainable when Saket Bhushan was not in custody on the filing date and illegal detention was not proved?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any illegal detention of Saket Bhushan for more than 24 hours, and he was not in custody when the writ was filed. The habeas corpus petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.
Issue: Could the Court, in this habeas corpus petition, grant relief regarding the Pulsar motorcycle kept at the police station?
Answer: No. The Court held that the petitioner had not shown any unlawful seizure of the motorcycle and that release or otherwise of the vehicle could not be the subject of a habeas corpus writ proceeding under Article 226. It declined to adjudicate the motorcycle dispute in this case.
Issue: Was the petitioner entitled to compensation for alleged illegal detention of Saket Bhushan?
Answer: No. As no case of illegal detention was made out on the pleadings, the question of awarding compensation in writ jurisdiction did not arise.
Cases Cited by the Court
- D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 (relied upon by the petitioner; referred to in the judgment).
- Division Bench decision of Patna High Court dated 22.12.2020 in CWJC No. 333 of 2020 (relied upon by the petitioner; referred to in arguments).
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 541 of 2021
Case Title: Rashmi Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (4) PLJR 496
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Khatim Reza
Date of Judgment: 10.10.2022
Nature of Case: Criminal writ petition seeking writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents/State of Bihar: Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, A.C. to Advocate General
Link to Judgment: Official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
