ACB violated Article 22(1) by not communicating grounds of arrest to ex-minister Mahesh Joshi: Raj HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of Dr. Mahesh Joshi, who was arrested in connection with the alleged Rs 900-crore Jal Jeevan Mission scam, while recording a finding of non-compliance with the mandatory constitutional obligation to communicate grounds of arrest, and simultaneously expressing serious doubt about the ACB’s basic understanding of what “grounds of arrest” means.

A division bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, in an order authored by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, dismissed the petition filed by the detenue’s son Rohit Joshi under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that once a Magistrate has passed successive judicial remand orders authorising custody and those orders have not been challenged, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued to declare the arrest illegal on the ground of non-communication of grounds of arrest.

The bench, however, was categorical that the ACB had failed to comply with its constitutional and statutory obligations. Observing that neither the detenue nor his family members were ever informed of the grounds of arrest in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court remarked:

“We have very serious doubt about the understanding of police in the State of Rajasthan, in particularly the material indicate that the ACB is not aware about the basic fundamentals of the ground of arrest. The ACB has merely mentioned the offence registered against the detenue and on basis of that made arrest of detenue Dr. Mahesh Joshi.”

Dr. Mahesh Joshi was arrested at 7:45 a.m. on May 7, 2026 in connection with an FIR, registered at P.S. ACB, Jaipur, under Sections 7(c), 12, 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC. He was produced before the Special Judge (PC Act Cases) No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I on the same day and remanded to police custody till 11.05.2026.

At the stage of first remand itself, counsel for the detenue filed an application alleging non-compliance of the directions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana: (2025) 5 SCC 799. The Special Judge, however, did not decide the application and sanctioned a three-day remand. The Special Judge later recused himself, the matter was transferred, and the application was ultimately dismissed — after 31 days — on June 8, 2026. The present habeas corpus petition was filed on May 19, 2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, appearing with Mr. Siddharth Sharma and Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, pressed the constitutional ground before the division bench, contending that neither before nor after the arrest were grounds communicated to the detenue or his family, either orally or in writing. He submitted that the ACB’s own accounts were contradictory: in its first reply filed on May 11, 2026, the ACB stated the grounds had been informed to Dr. Mahesh Joshi himself; in its detailed reply filed on May 14, 2026, it shifted position and claimed the son had been informed. Counsel also alleged that the Hukumnama of May 6, 2026, purporting to depute two Additional SPs to detain the accused, was fabricated.

He further submitted that the petitioner’s father, a well-known public figure, had been released on bail in an Enforcement Directorate matter and had been regularly attending court proceedings without any attempt to abscond. He relied on Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of AP & Ors.: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228 for the proposition that in cases of breach of Article 22, a habeas corpus petition is the proper recourse.

Learned Advocate General, Mr. Rajendra Prasad (Senior Advocate), appearing for the respondents along with Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG, resisted the petition on two planks: first, that substantial compliance had been achieved, as counsel for the detenue was present at the time of the first remand; second, and more importantly, that once a Magistrate passes an order of remand, that order has the character of a judicial order and a habeas corpus petition does not lie to challenge the arrest. He relied on State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee (Criminal Appeal No. 1124/2018), V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director (Criminal Appeals 2284-2285/2023), and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan: 2025 INSC 979.

The Court, after surveying the law on the communication of grounds of arrest, reproduced Section 47 of the BNSS and traced the line of Supreme Court authority in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India: (2024) 7 SCC 576 (grounds must be furnished in writing), Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi): (2024) 8 SCC 254 (distinction between “grounds of arrest” and “reasons of arrest”), and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra: 2025 INSC 1288, which issued the following directions:

“i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023). ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands. iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.”

On the facts, the bench found that the ACB had placed on record only a notice under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS containing the signature of Dr. Mahesh Joshi — a signature obtained, the Court noted, when the detenue was already at ACB Headquarters and in police custody, rendering it of no evidentiary value. No written memo indicating the specific grounds of arrest was placed on record at any stage. The court also drew attention to the inconsistency between the two replies filed by the ACB, characterising the additional facts introduced in the second reply as “manipulated facts”.

Reproducing the direction in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra) that a Magistrate is duty-bound to ascertain compliance with Article 22(1) before authorising remand, the bench was sharply critical of the conduct of the Special Judge: “the Sessions Judge who was appointed as the Special Judge, (PC Act cases) has not complied the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. We failed to understand why the compliance has not been ensured by him as the duty was casted upon him.”

Nonetheless, applying the limitation recognised in V. Senthil Balaji and Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, the Court held that habeas corpus does not lie once the detenue is in judicial custody pursuant to successive remand orders which have not been challenged through appropriate legal remedies. The bench observed:

“there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law as discussed hereinabove but considering the limitation as expressed in several landmark judgments as referred herein above, it is not possible for this court to consider the legality of the arrest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Special Judge has already decided application on 8th June 2026 and the petitioner is free to challenge the order as per law.”

The Court also noted that a coordinate division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Neeraj v. State of UP (Habeas Corpus Petition No. 218 of 2026) had similarly refused to declare an arrest illegal on the ground of non-communication of grounds of arrest.

Before parting with the order, the bench directed that a copy be sent to the Registrar General to be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, and also to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, with the observation that police officers and judicial officers of the State need to be trained in the directions issued in Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah “so that at initial stage, the compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution is made meaningfully.”

Title: Rohit Joshi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 171/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:23168-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya with Mr. Siddharth Sharma and Mr. Himanshu Choudhary

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate (AG), with Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG, Mr. Aman Kumar, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ms. Neha Goyal, Mr. Vijay Yadav, AGA, Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA, Mr. Tanay Goyal, Ms. Manju Dave, AGA