Habeas corpus maintainable against unlawful GST detention where mandatory arrest safeguards and remand requirements were not complied with.

A habeas corpus petition was held maintainable against arrest and remand where the detention was alleged to be unlawful, and Article 226 jurisdiction was not barred by the existence of a statutory arrest procedure. The Court held that, under GST arrest safeguards, the Commissioner must record reasons to believe on the basis of material, while the grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and furnished in writing with the arrest memo. On the facts, the disputed service of grounds, defective arrest memo compliance, and inadequate satisfaction before remand rendered the remand order illegal. The detention was therefore unsustainable, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the habeas corpus petition was maintainable against the arrest and remand; (ii) whether the remand order was vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements relating to grounds of arrest and arrest memo under the GST arrest procedure.

Issue (i): whether the habeas corpus petition was maintainable against the arrest and remand.

Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus was held to be maintainable where the remand order is not in accordance with law. The availability of an alleged statutory arrest procedure does not bar the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the detention is shown to be unlawful.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the remand order was vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements relating to grounds of arrest and arrest memo under the GST arrest procedure.

Analysis: The Court held that the Commissioner must record reasons to believe on the basis of material, but the reasons to believe need not be furnished to the arrestee. At the same time, the grounds of arrest had to be explained to the arrested person and furnished in writing along with the arrest memo in accordance with the governing instructions. On the facts, there was a serious dispute as to prior service of the grounds of arrest, the arrest memo did not reflect annexure compliance, and the remand order did not show proper satisfaction before remand. The remand was therefore held to suffer from legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The remand order was illegal and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained and the petitioner was directed to be released, while leaving it open to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the remand order is shown to be contrary to law and the mandatory pre-remand safeguards relating to communication of grounds of arrest are not duly complied with, the resulting detention is unlawful and amenable to habeas corpus relief.

---