Arrest, Remand & Illegal Detention by Police explained by Chhattisgarh HC

Chhattisgarh High Court has explained how executing cross-state detentions without a transit remand under the guise of 'voluntary cooperation' can violate fundamental liberties to vitiate custody orders. Holding that judicial remand cannot cure an illegal detention by Police, Chhattisgarh HC directed immediate release of a cyber-fraud suspect. 

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal adjudicated a writ petition under Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging illegal detention by Police and subsequent remand orders in an inter-state cyber fraud FIR. 

Rights of Accused under Constitution 

On Remand and Illegal Detention by Police 

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the constitutional protection under Article 22(2) of Constitution becomes operative from the precise point when an individual's liberty is substantially curtailed. The Court elaborated on the legal standing that "The constitutional guarantee contained in Article 22(2) cannot be defeated by postponing the formal preparation of an arrest memo. The expression 'arrest' occurring in Article 22(2) cannot be construed in a narrow or technical sense. The constitutional protection becomes operative from the point of time when an individual's liberty is substantially curtailed and he is placed under the control of the police. Acceptance of the respondents' submission would enable the investigating agency to keep a person in its exclusive custody for an indefinite duration under the guise of voluntary cooperation and thereafter prepare a formal arrest memo at a time convenient to it, thereby rendering the constitutional safeguard illusory. Such an interpretation cannot be countenanced." 

On Grounds of Arrest 

Addressing the mandatory communication of arrest grounds, the Court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) ( "2024 INSC 414": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 73), and Manubhai Ratilal Patel through Ushaben v. State of Gujarat & Others ( "(2013) 1 SCC 314": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 378) to emphasize that fundamental rights violations render arrest and remand proceedings non-est. Rebuking the mechanical exercise of power by Magistrates, the Court stated that judicial remand requires an active application of mind to the legality of the initial arrest. 

The Court has following directions: 

The Chhattisgarh High Court accordingly directed the release of accused for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. He was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs 5 Lakhs along with two sureties and other conditions.  

Background 

The case originated from FIR No. 3/2025 registered at Cyber Police Station, Surguja under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, alleging a multi-crore share market investment fraud. On 28.06.2026, police officials picked up the petitioner from Rohtak, Haryana, transported him to Delhi, held him at Chhattisgarh Bhawan, and subsequently drove him across multiple states to Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 

While the State contended that the petitioner voluntarily accompanied the team to comply with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 owing to financial constraints, the petitioner argued that he was kept under illegal custody for over 48 hours without being produced before the nearest Magistrate or provided grounds of arrest. A formal arrest was shown on 30.06.2026 at Ambikapur, following which the Magistrate granted judicial custody and later police custody. 

Setting aside the remand orders dated 30.06.2026 and 03.07.2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the proceedings as violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ordering the petitioner's release on bail. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: WPCR No. 388 of 2026 

Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:33358-DB 

Case Title: Jitesh Anand @ Jitu v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nitesh Jha, Mr. Harjas Singh and Mr. Gourav Patel, Advocates. 

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General. 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 5899