The Punjab & Haryana High Court has once again reinforced the importance of safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring strict compliance with statutory arrest procedures. In a recent order, the Court declared the detention of two individuals—Mrigank Malhotra and his mother, Gunjan Malhotra—illegal and unjustified, issuing a contempt notice to the Haryana Police for failing to comply with the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577.
This case serves as a significant reminder that arrests cannot be made mechanically, especially in business-related disputes and offences carrying a punishment below seven year
Background: Habeas Corpus Petition Filed at Night
A Habeas Corpus petition was moved late on Saturday night by the father of the detenues, stating that both individuals were picked up by the Haryana Police without following due process. The High Court took prompt action and issued notice before sunrise on Sunday, indicating the urgency and seriousness of the allegations.
The FIR invoked Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC, all of which carry a maximum sentence of less than seven years—making Section 41-A CrPC compliance mandatory.
Court’s Findings: Non-Compliance With Section 41-A CrPC
The High Court noted multiple procedural violations:
1. Defective 41-A Notice
The 41-A notice allegedly issued to the detenue:
• Did not bear the signature of any witness
• Did not show that any attempts were made to serve the notice
• Was not affixed or sent by post
• Was never intended to be actually served
Justice Harkesh Manuja held that the conduct of the police was “illegal and improbable” and failed to meet basic statutory requirements.
2. No Reason Shown for Arrest
Even the arrest memo under Section 41-B CrPC did not record reasons justifying the need for arrest—another serious violation of the law and the directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil.
3. Magistrate Ignored Procedural Lapses
The Court observed that even the Magistrate, while granting police custody, failed to notice these glaring irregularities—raising concerns about mechanical remand orders.
⸻
Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines
The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil has clearly held:
• Arrest must be the last resort, especially for offences punishable up to seven years
• Police must mandatorily issue, serve, and prove service of 41-A notice
• Arrest without following these steps is illegal
The High Court held that none of these requirements were followed.
⸻
Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition After Arrest
The complainant argued that once a person is shown as “arrested”, a Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that:
• If arrest itself is illegal
• If the remand is mechanical or without jurisdiction
…a Habeas Corpus petition is very much maintainable.
The Court cited Gautam Navlakha v. NIA (2021), where the Supreme Court permitted Habeas Corpus in cases of illegal remand.
⸻
Court’s Orders: Release and Contempt Notice
After noting the violations, the High Court directed:
✔ Immediate release of Mrigank Malhotra on interim bail
Subject to furnishing bail bonds before the Magistrate.
✔ Issuance of contempt notice
To:
• City SHO Jatinder Singh
• ASI Ramesh Kumar
They have been directed to appear before the Court on December 12.
As for Gunjan Malhotra, the State contended she was never arrested, and therefore no release order was required.
⸻
Key Takeaways
This judgment reiterates several important principles:
1. Police must strictly follow Section 41-A CrPC in offences below 7 years.
Non-compliance renders the arrest illegal.
2. Arbitrary arrests in commercial disputes will not be tolerated.
3. Habeas Corpus is maintainable even after arrest if due process is violated.
4. Magistrates must scrutinize arrest and remand records instead of granting custody mechanically.
5. Personal liberty remains a constitutional priority, and courts will intervene promptly.
⸻
Case Details
Case Title: Daggar Malhotra v. State of Haryana & Ors.
