Illegal arrest and mechanical remand: non-supply of arrest grounds sustained habeas corpus relief and release from custody.

Failure to show due supply of the grounds of arrest and connected arrest documents rendered the arrest unlawful, because the arrest memo did not indicate annexure or separate service of those documents and the record lacked a distinct DIN on the grounds of arrest. The remand order was also held mechanical and passed without application of mind, as it relied only on a general allegation of a serious economic offence and did not examine whether the arrest documents had been served. The detention was therefore quashed, habeas corpus relief was held maintainable, and release from custody was directed forthwith, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was supplied the grounds of arrest and connected arrest documents in compliance with law; (ii) Whether the remand order was vitiated for being mechanical and without application of mind, making the habeas corpus petition maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was supplied the grounds of arrest and connected arrest documents in compliance with law.

Analysis: The arrest memo did not show that the grounds of arrest were annexed to it or that they were supplied as a separate, duly identified document. The record also did not show a separate DIN on the grounds of arrest, and the jama-talashi memo was left materially incomplete. On this record, the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest was not shown to have been complied with in the manner required by law.

Conclusion: The supply of grounds of arrest was not satisfactorily established, and the arrest procedure was held to be unlawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand order was vitiated for being mechanical and without application of mind, making the habeas corpus petition maintainable.

Analysis: The remand order recorded only a general allegation of serious economic offence and did not address whether the grounds of arrest had been served or whether the arrest documents were duly supplied. The remand was thus passed in a cursory manner without meaningful consideration of the legality of the arrest and custody. Such a remand order could not sustain continued detention and did not bar habeas corpus relief.

Conclusion: The remand order was held to be mechanical and illegal, and the habeas corpus petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The detention, arrest, and remand were quashed, and release from custody was directed forthwith, leaving it open to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the grounds of arrest are not shown to have been duly supplied and the remand order is passed mechanically without application of mind, the resulting custody is illegal and amenable to habeas corpus relief.

---