JOBANPREET CASE: Detention Illegal from the Very First Instance, says High Court, slamming Punjab Police
Jobanpreet case: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has released its detailed order in the Jobanpreet Singh case, holding that his arrest violated constitutional safeguards and Section 35 of the BNSS. The court ruled that subsequent remand orders could not legitimise an illegal arrest
Arvind Chhabra
Chandigarh, June 4
A day after ordering the release of Majitha resident Jobanpreet Singh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued its detailed judgment, holding that his detention was illegal from the very inception as police failed to comply with mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrests.
Justice Alok Jain, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Jobanpreet’s father Mukhwant Singh, ruled that the detention violated Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution as well as Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The court directed that Jobanpreet be released from custody, while clarifying that the State remains free to proceed in the criminal case in accordance with law and after complying with due process.
The case has attracted political attention in Majitha after Shiromani Akali Dal leaders, including Bikram Singh Majithia, alleged that Jobanpreet had been falsely implicated because he worked as a polling agent for an SAD-backed candidate during the recent municipal elections. North Desk had reported the whole story.
Jobanpreet case: Court rejects State’s defence
Jobanpreet case: The State had argued that Jobanpreet was arrested legally on May 31 after police received secret information that he was trying to flee abroad to evade arrest in an FIR dated May 30, 2026. It also contended that once he had been produced before a magistrate and remanded to custody, a habeas corpus petition was not maintainable.
However, the High Court held that subsequent remand orders could not cure an arrest that was unlawful at its inception.
The court emphasised that informing an accused of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a constitutional mandate.
‘Reasons for arrest’ not same as ‘grounds of arrest’
Jobanpreet case: One of the key findings in the judgment concerns the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest”.
Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Jain observed: “There is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The reasons for arrest are purely formal parameters… whereas the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested.”
The court noted that the State had claimed it dispensed with the issuance of a notice under Section 35 BNSS because of exceptional circumstances. However, according to the petitioner, the grounds supplied at the time of arrest merely referred to the commission of a non-bailable offence and did not contain the detailed reasons now being cited by police.
Court questions urgency behind arrest
Jobanpreet case: Justice Jain also scrutinised the circumstances surrounding the arrest.
The alleged incident occurred on May 26, while the FIR was registered only on May 30. After the FIR, the investigating officer inspected the spot, prepared a site plan and recorded statements. Yet, according to the court, no recovery had been effected and there was no medical opinion or other substantial evidence available with the investigating agency at that stage.
The judgment records:
“The authorities have not been able to show that what was the recovery to be effected from the detenue and more so in the absence of any medical opinion or any substantial piece of cogent evidence surfaced or available with the Investigating Officer that the immediate arrest of the detenue was warranted.”
Remand cannot legitimise illegal arrest
The court rejected the State’s argument that the subsequent police and judicial remand orders validated the custody.
Justice Jain held:
“When the arrest of the detenue was not in compliance of the provision of Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 then the subsequent remand order will not cure the illegality committed by the police authorities.”
The court further observed that because the statutory safeguards were not followed, the arrest could not be treated as lawful merely because a magistrate later granted remand.
‘Detention was illegal at the very first instance’
In its concluding findings, the High Court came down heavily on the police action.
The judgment states:
“It is apparent that the detention of the detenue was illegal at the very first instance and the statutory provisions had not been complied with.”
The court added that:
“The provisions of BNSS, 2023 have not been followed and Article 21 and 22(1) of Constitution of India have been violated.”
Final direction
Disposing of the petition, Justice Jain ordered:
“The detenue be released from the custody, as his initial detention is illegal being in contravention to the rights and protection envisaged under Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with the relevant provisions of BNSS, 2023, and the judicial pronouncements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
At the same time, the court made it clear that the State is free to continue the investigation and proceed further in accordance with law, provided all legal safeguards are followed.
ALSO READ: Bikram Majithia Row: Who Is Jobanpreet, and Why Bikram Majithia Was Named in FIR
Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E
One Comment