ORDER : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. 1. Perused the affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. Earlier, we have issued notices to Respondent Nos.7 and 8. Service of the same is awaited. 3. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 would show that the son of the petitioner is an accused in Kurukshetra (Haryana) in connection with Cyber Crime Case No. 43 of 2025. The case was instituted on 26.06.2025 under Section 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS, 2023’). In connection with the said case, police personnel from Haryana arrived on 29.08.2025 in the Shastrinagar Police Station. It, however, appears that in the subsequent paragraphs, it is stated that they sought assistance of Patna District Police, particularly of Shastrinagar Police Station, and in this regard a Station Diary Entry No. 1325 of 2025 dated 28.08.2025 was recorded. Thus, the correct date of arrival of the Haryana Police is 28.08.2025. Later on, the petitioner’s son, namely, Fahad Hamza @ Ravi was brought to Shastrinagar Police Station, thereafter, the police team sought for transit remand before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- IX, Patna from where the transit remand for a period of six days was provided. The ASI Satyaveer Singh, Haryana Police took accused son of the petitioner in his custody. 4. Learned AC to AG has submitted that in such circumstance, a Writ of Habeas Corpus would not proceed. He has relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 1 SCC 314 (paragraph ‘22’) and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shikha Kumari Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2020 (2) PLJR 15 . Learned AC to AG has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar and Others in Cr.WJC No. 2417 of 2024 5. Prima-facie, we have noticed that in the case of Shikha Kumari (supra) and Anand Kumar Thakur (supra), the views expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye and Others reported in (1969) 1 SCC 292 have not been taken note of and discussed. 6. Mr. The State of Bihar and Others in Cr.WJC No. 2417 of 2024 5. Prima-facie, we have noticed that in the case of Shikha Kumari (supra) and Anand Kumar Thakur (supra), the views expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye and Others reported in (1969) 1 SCC 292 have not been taken note of and discussed. 6. Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits on the strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhu Limaye (supra) that in the said case also, it was pleaded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Mr. Madhu Limaye was arrested by the Officer-in- Charge and later on, an order of remand was passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with that aspect of the matter in paragraph ‘12’ of the judgment where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand, the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters. In the said case also, it was contended on behalf of the State that if the arrested person wanted to challenge the legality of the remand order, they should have moved the High Court under appropriate provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court having noticed that Mr. Madhu Limaye had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, complained of detention or confinement in jail without compliance with the Constitutional and legal provisions, held that his detention in custody could not continue after his arrest because of the violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, he would be entitled to be released forthwith. It is pointed out by learned counsel that in paragraph ‘12’ of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that “…orders of remand are not such as would cure the constitutional infirmities…”. 7. It is further pointed out that this Court being a Constitutional Court, taking a cue from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mr. Madhu Limaye case, if it is found that the arrest of the son of the petitioner is in violation of the provision of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, can order his release. 8. 7. It is further pointed out that this Court being a Constitutional Court, taking a cue from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mr. Madhu Limaye case, if it is found that the arrest of the son of the petitioner is in violation of the provision of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, can order his release. 8. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . It is pointed out that in the present case, the FIR has been registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. The offence as alleged is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and the accused shall also be liable to fine. In case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically laid down that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, cannot be arrested by a police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. Certain guidelines have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a specific emphasis in paragraphs ‘8.2’ and ‘8.3’ of the judgment that the Magistrate who authorises detention has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all constitutional rights of the person arrested are satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused. 9. At this stage, attention of this Court has also been drawn towards a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11901 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was considering a question regarding the procedure to be followed by the police of one State, when they go to some other State or Union Territory to effect an arrest while investigating a complaint or a first information report disclosing a cognizable offence. It is pointed out that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued Office Memorandum (OM) dated 16 th May, 2012 setting out the steps to be followed regarding arrest of an accused outside the State/Union Territory where the complaint/FIR is registered. The procedure is based on Sections 48, 77, 79 and 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’) (now Sections 45, 79, 81 and 82 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita respectively). The protocols are to be followed by a police in the event of inter- state arrest. One of them is that when the police officer decides to effect an arrest, he must set out the facts and record reasons in writing disclosing the satisfaction that arrest is necessary for the purpose of investigation. At first instance, he should move the Jurisdictional Magistrate to seek arrest/search warrants under Sections 78 and 79 Cr.PC except in emergent cases when the time taken is likely to result in escape of the accused or disappearance of incriminating evidence. 10. It is submitted that in the present case, from the affidavit of the State, it does not appear that Haryana Police had come to Shastrinagar Police Station with any warrant of arrest or search warrant. It is, therefore, evident that without looking into the remand order of the learned Magistrate, it may be found that the Haryana Police did not follow the procedures which were in conformity with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and there is a violation of the constitutional right of the petitioner. 11. It is further pointed out from the enclosures to the counter affidavit it would appear that Haryana Police simply submitted a letter to the Officer-in-charge of the Shastrinagar Police Station in which they informed that they had come for investigation of the case and for that reason they should be provided assistance by police. Later on, they took away the son of the petitioner on the basis of the transit remand. 12. Having regard to the aforementioned submissions at first instance, prima-facie, we are of the opinion that this writ application cannot be dismissed in limine on the grounds raised by learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar. 13. Later on, they took away the son of the petitioner on the basis of the transit remand. 12. Having regard to the aforementioned submissions at first instance, prima-facie, we are of the opinion that this writ application cannot be dismissed in limine on the grounds raised by learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar. 13. In the matter of Madhu Limaye (supra), a Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that detention without informing the grounds of arrest is violative of Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. We find from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner has specifically stated that she had received a call from the mobile number of her son, the caller identified himself to be of Haryana Police and asked the petitioner to come and meet her at Shastri Nagar Police Station. When she reached there, she was kept standing in the police station till 04:00-05:00 PM in the evening and no information was given as to why her son was being detained. The petitioner was not allowed to meet or speak with her son. She has stated that the police personnel of Haryana Police thrust a bunch of documents on the petitioner and made her to sign them without giving any opportunity to read or understand the same. The petitioner has stated that she requested the police personnel present at the Shastri Nagar Police Station to at least inform her as to why her son was arrested or where he was being taken but they offered no help whatsoever. Police had also taken his son to the home where the petitioner was allowed to talk to his son for about 01-02 minutes, thereafter, the police personnel took his son to his room and made him to record some videos. She was provided with a piece of paper which read “F.I.R. No 43/2025 Thana Cyber Crime, District Kurukshetra, State Haryana”. 14. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, there is no denial of the facts as disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 15. In the matter of Madhu Limaye (supra), similar was the situation noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said case also, in the return filed, the facts stated in the writ application were not controverted. 4, 5 and 6, there is no denial of the facts as disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 15. In the matter of Madhu Limaye (supra), similar was the situation noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said case also, in the return filed, the facts stated in the writ application were not controverted. At this stage, this Court would reproduce paragraphs ‘9’ and ‘12’ of the judgment hereunder for a ready reference:- “ 9. The submission of Madhu Limaye on the second point has hardly been effectively met on behalf of the State. Article 22(1) provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Madhu Limaye had, in his petitions addressed to this Court, made a positive assertion that he and his companions had not been informed of the grounds for their arrest. In the return filed by the State this assertion has neither been controverted nor has anything been stated with reference to it. It appears that the authorities wanted to invoke all kinds of provisions like Sections 151, 107, 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code apart from Section 188 of the Penal Code, 1860. Since no arrest could be effected for an offence under Section 188 by the police officers without proper orders these officers may have been naturally reluctant to comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 22(1) by giving the necessary information. At any rate, whatever the reasons, it has not been explained even during the course of arguments before us why the arrested persons were not told the reasons for their arrest or of the offences for which they had been taken into custody. 12. Once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters. This the State has failed to do. The remand orders are patently routine and appear to have been made mechanically. This the State has failed to do. The remand orders are patently routine and appear to have been made mechanically. All that Mr Chagla has said is that if the arrested persons wanted to challenge their legality the High Court should have been moved under appropriate provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. But it must be remembered that Madhu Limaye and others have, by moving this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, complained of detention or confinement in jail without compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions. If their detention in custody could not continue after their arrest because of the violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution they were entitled to be released forthwith. The orders of remand are not such as would cure the constitutional infirmities. This disposes of the third contention of Madhu Limaye.” 16. In the case of Manubhai Ratila Patel (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court first noticed the judgment of the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt vs. State reported in (1994) 5 SCC 410. Learned AC to AG has relied upon paragraph ‘22’ of the judgment to submit that on the date of return of the Rule if the custody of detention is on the basis of a valid order then the petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus is to be dismissed. In our opinion, the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Manubhai Ratilal Patel (supra) are required to be gone into to fully appreciate the concepts with regard to the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Paragraphs ‘24’ and ‘25’ of the judgment in the case of Manubhai Ratilal Patel (supra) read as under:- “ 24. The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function. The Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering the detention of an accused. While exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend his remand. The purpose of remand as postulated under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. The purpose of remand as postulated under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner. 25. It is apt to note that in Madhu Limaye, In re , [ (1969) 1 SCC 292 : AIR 1969 SC 1014 ] it has been stated that: (SCC p. 299, para 12) “12.Once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters.” 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a substantial case at this stage by pointing out certain circumstances which are indicating towards arrest of the son of the petitioner without following the Constitutional mandate as enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the protocol in the matter of inter-state arrest as laid down by the MHA, Government of India. 18. We will await response of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 19. In the meantime, we direct interim release of the petitioner forthwith in connection with Kurukshetra (Haryana) Cyber Crime Case No. 43 of 2025, subject to the condition that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall attend the investigation on the dates fixed by Haryana Police. This will be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 20. Let the order be communicated to the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for taking immediate steps to place it before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to place the order before the competent authority/court, as the case may be. 22. List this case after service of notice on Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 or on 17.10.2025 whichever is earlier under appropriate heading.