Recording of reasons to believe and written grounds are mandatory; non compliance and routine arrests for lesser penalty offences justify habeas corpus.

The court held that under the GST arrest framework the competent authority must record reasons to believe supported by material and furnish written grounds of arrest as an annexure before remand; failure to do so made the remand irregular and the habeas corpus petition maintainable, resulting in release. The supervisory principle limiting routine arrests in lesser penalty offences applies and, read with the requirement for recorded reasons supported by material, weighs against sustaining detention where procedural safeguards are not shown to have been complied with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the remand order and arrest were illegal for failure to supply the grounds of arrest and the reasons to believe to the arrestee, thereby rendering the writ petition maintainable; (ii) Whether the ratio limiting routine arrests for offences punishable up to seven years applies and affects the validity of the arrest.

Issue (i): Whether the remand order and arrest were rendered illegal because the grounds of arrest and the reasons to believe were not furnished to the arrestee prior to remand, giving jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus.

Analysis: Consideration was given to the requirements under the GST statutory scheme and to the standards articulated in authoritative precedent and departmental instructions regarding communication of grounds of arrest and the recording of reasons to believe. The factual record shows a dispute about whether the arrest memo contained an annexure with grounds of arrest and whether the arrestee received the medical report and written grounds before the remand; the reasons to believe were produced to the court in sealed cover. The statute and instructions require explicit recording of reasons to believe by the competent authority and provision of grounds of arrest in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo; non-compliance can render remand irregular and permit judicial review by habeas corpus.

Conclusion: The remand order suffered from legal infirmity because the record did not establish that the grounds of arrest were furnished as required before remand; accordingly the writ petition was maintainable and succeeds on this issue in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the principle restricting routine arrests for offences punishable up to seven years applies to the present arrest and affects its validity.

Analysis: The applicable supervisory principles limiting arrests for lesser-penalty offences and requiring circumspection and necessity were applied to the facts. The court found that the ratio restricting routine arrests for offences punishable up to seven years is applicable and relevant in assessing the validity of the arrest under the GST regime; this assessment is to be read together with the requirement that reasons to believe be recorded and supported by material.

Conclusion: The restriction on routine arrests for offences punishable up to seven years applies to the present case and weighs against sustaining the remand where procedural safeguards have not been shown to have been complied with; this conclusion favours the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The combined deficiencies in compliance with prescribed procedural safeguards regarding written grounds and the necessity-based limitation on routine arrests rendered the remand order unsustainable; the petition is allowed and the petitioner is to be released as directed, while preserving the respondents' right to proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory arrest power under the GST law is exercised, the competent authority must record adequate reasons to believe based on material and furnish the grounds of arrest in accordance with prescribed procedure; failure to comply and routine arrest in cases falling within the limited-penalty principle renders remand and detention amenable to habeas corpus relief.

---