Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in illegally detaining the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No.468 of 2026 of Balapur Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under sections 318(4) and 110 read with section 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner (detenu), who is Accused No.4 in F.I.R.No.468 of 2026, is represented by his son.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detention of the petitioner/detenu is illegal and in violation of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates 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 to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. According to counsel, the grounds of arrest are required to be supplied to the detenu in a language with which the detenu is conversant. However, in the present case, the grounds of arrest were supplied to the detenu in English, whereas the detenu is conversant only with Hindi. Counsel further submits that the arrest and detention are contrary to sections 47 and 35(3) of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).

4. Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS provides that any police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that the person has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, provided that the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied.

5. Section 47(1) of the BNSS provides that every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which the person is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Section 47(1) of the BNSS corresponds to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has filed the Written Instructions of the respondent No.3/the Station House Officer, Balapur Police Station, Hyderabad.

7. The Written Instructions state that the detenu is the Accused No.4 in Crime No.468 of 2026, registered for the offences under sections 318(4) and 110 read with section 3(5) of the BNS i.e., ‘cheating’ and ‘attempt to commit culpable homicide’. The detenu was brought to Balapur Police Station, Hyderabad, on 06.08.2026 at about 19:00 hours, and his confessional statement was recorded in the presence of two mediators. The detenu was subsequently arrested at 20:20 hours after being informed of the grounds of his arrest. On 06.08.2026 at about 22:30 hours, the detenu was referred to the Government General Hospital, Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy District, for a medical examination. On 07.08.2026 at 5:00 hours, the detenu was again referred to the Government General Hospital, Maheshwaram, for medical examination and the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Maheshwaram, issued a Fitness Certificate. On 07.08.2026 at 7:00 hours, the detenu was produced before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at L.B. Nagar, who, in turn, remanded the detenu to judicial custody. Pursuant to the remand order, the detenu was lodged in the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, on 07.08.2026 at 10:30 a.m.

8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents.

9. We are of the firm opinion that the present Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable since the detenu was arrested on 06.08.2026 and remanded to judicial custody on 07.08.2026.

10. It is apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra Vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee1.

11. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable once a remand order has been passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. However, this remains true even if the Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not served on the detenu in a language known to him. All such contentions can be urged by the detenu in appropriate proceedings before the competent Court having jurisdiction.

12. The Court is informed that the detenu has already filed an application (Crl.M.P.No.1276 of 2026) seeking bail before the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

13. W.P.No.26425 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed on the above grounds. There shall be no order as to costs.