Delhi HC: Habeas corpus against arrest fails unless a BNSS procedural lapse caused real prejudice

The Delhi High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by a man arrested in a POCSO case who claimed his arrest memo falsely recorded the time of arrest and that no family member had signed it, as Section 36(b)(i) of the BNSS requires, or been informed of the arrest as Section 48 requires. A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Arun Bhardwaj found the petitioner's own account placed his family at the scene, and that the arrest memo itself recorded his sister's name, her husband's name and her phone number, making it implausible the family was kept uninformed. Both the remanding Magistrate and the Special Judge had already rejected these pleas, and the petitioner had a separate bail application pending before the High Court.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 INSC 979), the Bench held that a habeas corpus petition cannot succeed on an alleged procedural lapse in arrest unless the petitioner shows the lapse actually prejudiced him. Finding no such prejudice, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 has only a limited scope for resolving disputed facts on affidavits.