Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

    Illegal Arrest under BNSS, 2023: Constitutional Limits, Written Grounds of Arrest, and the Continuing Relevance of Habeas Corpus Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:442 Decision Date: 07 January 2026 Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior Coram: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia & Justice Ashish Shroti I. Introduction: Arrest Power in the Post-BNSS Criminal Justice System The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) represents a structural transformation of India’s criminal procedure. However, statutory transition does not imply constitutional dilution. The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh stands as a firm reminder that arrest remains a constitutionally regulated power , bounded by the guarantees of Articles 21 and 22(1) . This decision assumes particular importance as one of the earliest High Court rulings to comprehe...

Pre-Arrest Medical Examination and the 24-Hour Rule: Judicial Clarification by the Bombay High Court By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Bombay High Court, in the case of Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025), delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the legal position regarding the computation of the 24-hour period within which an arrested person must be produced before a magistrate. The Division Bench, comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held that the time spent in pre-arrest medical examination cannot be excluded from this statutory timeline, and any detention exceeding 24 hours without judicial authorization is illegal. Factual Background The petitioner, Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar, a 58-year-old retired individual, was implicated in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and dishonest misappropriation of a substantial sum. After the rejection of his anticipatory bail by both the High Court and subsequently the ...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction The writ jurisdiction under the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone of judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue writs for safeguarding constitutional and legal rights. Article 139 also authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writs in specific cases as provided by parliamentary legislation. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of the five writs – Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto – supported by authoritative judicial precedents and statutory interpretation. 1. Habeas Corpus Legal Principle: Habeas Corpus, meaning "you may have the body," is the most potent safeguard of personal liberty, compelling authorities to produce a detained individual before the court and justify the legality of the detention. Key Judicial Precedents: The Supreme Court has clarified that Habeas Corpus acts as a procedur...

  Man in Live-In Relationship with His Married Sister Cannot File Habeas Corpus Petition: Rajasthan High Court By Abhishek Jat, Advocate   Introduction The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed to be in a live-in relationship with a married woman. The Court ruled that there exists no fundamental right allowing a person to engage in a live-in relationship with a woman legally wedded to another man, especially when the woman in question appears to be his own sister. The Division Bench of Justices Madan Gopal Vyas and Shree Chandrashekhar observed that the petitioner had no legal standing to invoke the writ of habeas corpus under such circumstances. Factual Background In this case, the petitioner sought a directive from the State authorities to produce ‘X,’ a 32-year-old married woman who had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The petitioner claimed that ‘X’ had left her husband and was in a live-in relat...