JUNE 10, 2026

Habeas Corpus: Because Someone Forgot the DIN Again

By Vijay Kumar

IN Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021, the Supreme Court observed:

We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

This sentence of the Supreme Court deserves to be printed on mugs, mousepads, and the walls of GST offices:

Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.

In simpler English: "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

The Court reminded officers that arrest is an exception, not a recreational activity. It should be used only when custodial interrogation is essential, the crime is heinous, or the accused is likely to abscond.

If the accused is cooperating, the Court basically asks: "Why are you arresting him? For sport?"

CBIC, inspired by this judicial wisdom, issued Instruction No. 02/2022-23 (GST - Investigation); Dated: August 17, 2022 - a beautifully drafted document full of noble intentions. It reads like a human rights manual that accidentally wandered into the GST ecosystem.

CBIC's Ideal World Before Arrest

- "Reasons to believe" must be unambiguous and based on credible material.

- No arrest in technical disputes (which, in GST, is 90% of disputes).

- Arrest only for masterminds, fraudsters, and chronic summons dodgers.

- DIN - Document Identification Number - mandatory.

- Minimal force, minimal publicity - maximum paperwork.

If implemented, this would make India a tax - administration utopia - the kind found only in training manuals.

And then reality walks in - without a DIN.

Now the moot question is whether all these lofty ideals are followed in the field. Look at this recent case from the Allahabad High Court: Ashish Tyagi v Director General Of GST Intelligence in HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 509 of 2026 = 2026-TIOL-736-HC-ALL-GST:

The writ petitioner prayed for:

1. Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 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 the petitioner be released forthwith;

2. Setting aside the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No. 2122/2025, Union of India vs. Ashish Tyagi, under the CGST Act of the DGGI, Ghaziabad and all consequential proceedings thereof;

It was submitted 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 which is in clear violation of Circular No. 02/2022-2023 issued by the CGST Department.

- The arrest memo merely records that the grounds of arrest were explained to the arrestee. However, there was no recital to indicate that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner.

- The columns (i) to (iv) of the jama talashi were kept blank and the signatures of the petitioner were obtained thereon.

- 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 the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith.

The Department filed a counter affidavit but were unable to rebut the submissions of the petitioner by placing any material or document on record.

The High Court perused the arrest memo, which did 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 vs. State of West Bengal (reported in 2002-TIOL-230-SC-MISC.)

The High Court further found that the grounds of arrest did not bear any 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 his friend, about his arrest through a mobile phone call.

The High Court noted that the submission of the petitioner that, in terms of Circular issued by the CGST Department, every document is required to bear a DIN, has not been controverted by the respondents.

Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has been illegally detained by respondents in violation of the mandate of law.

In view of the above consideration, the High Court held the arrest and detention of petitioner to be illegal and he was directed to be released forthwith.

The Catch - This does not mean Tyagi is now free to roam the countryside. The Court quashed the arrest primarily because the paperwork lacked a DIN and proper procedure. The Department is totally free to arrest him all over again - provided they find a functioning printer to put a proper DIN on the memo this time.

But when can a HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION be filed in case of arrest? The same Allahabad High Court, two days before the above judgement in HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 218 of 2026; Niraj v State of UP = 2026-TIOLCORP-53-HC-ALL-MISC held:

(i) A habeas corpus writ petition can be preferred by an accused, at the earliest, if his initial remand is illegal and consequently his detention is illegal.

(ii) The filing of habeas corpus petition shall not be affected by rejection of bail application of the accused by the trial court only.

(iii) Rejection of bail application of accused by High Court or the Supreme Court, would be a bar to entertainment of habeas corpus since the bail application has been considered by the Bench of the High Court or the Supreme Court and it would not be proper for another coordinate Bench of the High Court or the Supreme Court, where the bail application was rejected, to entertain a habeas corpus writ petition by another Bench of the same court. It will amount to appeal / review of the judgment passed by the Bench deciding bail application of the accused.

(iv) Once the charge sheet is submitted against an accused and judicial order of cognizance is passed thereon by the competent court, the right of the accused to prefer habeas corpus writ petition on the ground that the initial judicial order of remand passed by the Magistrate was illegal would not be maintainable.

(v) After the cognizance is taken on the charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer, the challenge to arrest of accused can be made on the grounds of violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India by resorting to statutory remedy of bail provided under the statute.

(vi) The remedy of filing habeas corpus petition will also not be available to an accused after the order of committal or remand.

(vii) Even after framing of charge by the court, which is also a judicial order amenable to statutory challenge, the remedy of habeas corpus cannot be availed by an accused.

There is a Supreme Court Judgement and there is a Board Circular. Why are these not followed in the field?

In the DK Basu case, the Supreme Court issued the requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention:

These are not "best practices. These are mandatory requirements, with consequences. Any officer who cuts corners faces immediate departmental action and can be personally punished for contempt of court.

So, the ultimate question remains: If a tax offence is severe enough that you absolutely must arrest someone, is it really that difficult to just follow the Supreme Court's directions and your own Board's circular?

Neither the Supreme Court nor the CBIC write these guidelines for their own entertainment. They issue them so that individual personal liberty is treated with the constitutional respect it deserves-rather than being treated by the field formation as a minor, annoying clerical inconvenience. After all, if you have the power to take away a citizen's freedom, the least you can do is make sure your printer has ink.

Liberty shouldn't depend on toner levels.