Habeas corpus petition succeeds as arrest without mandatory DIN

Habeas corpus petition succeeds as arrest without mandatory DIN and specified location is declared illegal.

Issue

Whether the arrest and subsequent judicial remand of the petitioner by the DGGI can be declared a legal detention if the arrest memo omits the location of the arrest and the formal grounds of arrest fail to bear the mandatory CBIC Document Identification Number (DIN).

Facts

The petitioner was arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged tax offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.
Following the arrest, an arrest memo was prepared, and the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate (SCJM) in Meerut remanded the petitioner to judicial custody.
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus writ petition before the High Court, challenging the arrest, detention, and remand orders as completely illegal due to a direct breach of structural arrest safeguards.
The respondents and revenue authorities failed to present any material evidence or documentation to rebut the factual submissions made by the petitioner.
On review of the arrest records, the court noted that the official arrest memo did not disclose the location where the petitioner was taken into custody.
Furthermore, the formal grounds of arrest served on the petitioner (dated December 10, 2025) completely lacked the mandatory CBIC Document Identification Number (DIN).
The revenue did not dispute the existence or binding nature of the department’s circulars which mandate a valid DIN on every official outward communication and legal document.
The department argued that basic endorsements of receipt and the fact that an intimation of arrest was sent to the petitioner’s friend cured these procedural gaps.

Decision

Held, yes; since the statutory instructions regarding the assignment of a DIN and fundamental constitutional safeguards were breached, the entire custody was rendered bad in law.
Held, yes; the lack of a specified place of arrest in the memo and the missing DIN are foundational defects that cannot be cured or neutralized by a standard endorsement of receipt or a family notification.
Consequently, the court declared the arrest and subsequent detention entirely illegal and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.
The revenue respondents were left free to initiate fresh proceedings against the individual, provided they act strictly in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways

Absolute Mandate of the DIN: Departmental circulars requiring a Document Identification Number (DIN) carry strict statutory force. Serving grounds of arrest without a DIN creates a foundational illegality that completely vitiates the arrest process.
Strict Construction of Arrest Memos: An arrest memo is a vital safeguard against illegal detention; it must contain exact physical details, including the precise place of arrest, to maintain legal validity.
Habeas Corpus via Procedural Breaches: Even if a formal remand order is passed by a subordinate criminal court, a superior court can issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to order immediate release if the initial arrest violates fundamental constitutional or statutory protocols.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Ashish Tyagi

Director General of GST Intelligence^*

Siddharth and VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 509 of 2026

MAY 29, 2026

Anshu Singh and Hemendra Pratap Singh for the Petitioner. Dhananjay Awasthi, GA and Kuldeep Kumar for the Respondent.

ORDER

Siddharth, J. – Heard Sri Hamendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.A for the State-respondent.

2. The writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs :-

“(i)

To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the corpus/petitioner while declaring the detention, arrest, and subsequent remand and custody of the petitioner as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing that the petitioner be released forthwith;

(ii)

To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No. 2122 / 2025, Union of India v. Ashish Tyagi, under Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Ghaziabad and all consequential proceedings thereof,

(iii)

To issue any other and further writ, order, or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv)

To allow the instant petition with costs.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, neither the grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the arrest memo nor have the grounds of arrest been supplied as an annexure thereto, which is in clear violation of Circular No. 02/2022-2023 issued by the C.G.S.T. Department.

4. Secondly, no specific grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the arrest memo. The arrest memo merely records that the grounds of arrest were explained to the arrestee. However, there is no recital therein to indicate that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner as an annexure to the arrest memo. Further, the columns (i) to (iv) of the jama talashi were kept blank and the signatures of the petitioner were obtained thereon. It is further submitted that the learned Remand Magistrate failed to consider the aforesaid discrepancies and illegally granted remand of the petitioner. Hence, the arrest and detention of the petitioner are illegal and liable to be declared as such, and the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith.

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit but have not been able to rebut the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by placing any material or document on record.

6. We have perused the arrest memo, which does not disclose the place of arrest of the petitioner, in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [1997 SCC (Cri) 92].

7. We further find that the grounds of arrest dated 10.12.2025 do not bear any CBIC DIN. The petitioner has been made to endorse on the arrest memo that he had received the arrest memo along with the grounds of arrest and that he had informed Mr. Pawan Kumar, his friend, about his arrest through a mobile phone call.

8. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in terms of Circular No. 2/2022-2023 dated 11.03.2025 issued by the CGST Department, every document is required to bear a CBIC-DIN, has not been controverted by the respondents. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has been illegally detained by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in violation of the mandate of law.

9. In view of the above consideration, the arrest and detention of petitioner is held to be illegal and is directed to be released forthwith.

10. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with law.

11. The writ petition stands allowed.