The Allahabad High Court has declared the arrest of the petitioner illegal and quashed the remand order, holding that actual custody during search proceedings constitutes “arrest” for Article 22 purposes — the 24-hour clock starts from the moment of effective custody, not from when the arrest memo is signed.
The petitioner, father of the director of M/s NTEXX Textile Pvt. Ltd. investigated for fraudulent ITC and fake invoices, was detained by DGGI officials from 29.01.2026 during search proceedings in Delhi. He was taken to DGGI’s Noida office on the same day, formally shown arrested on 30.01.2026 at 3:53 PM at Noida, and produced before the Special CJM Meerut only on 31.01.2026 — more than 24 hours after effective custody.
The court held that no transit remand was sought from Delhi or Noida in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka [(2024) 4 SCC 749], the arrest memo did not mention the place of arrest, the DIN was absent from the grounds of arrest, reasons to believe were not furnished to the petitioner despite the mandate in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India [(2025) 6 SCC 545], and the Remand Magistrate passed the order without application of mind.
The respondents were left at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Nitin Aggarwal v. State of UP & 3 Others | Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 273/2026 | 3 April 2026 | Allahabad HC