The High Court has dismissed petitions filed by Dhruva Morje and Dileep Morje challenging their initial police remand following their arrests in connection with the violent assault on advocate Ankur Kumar at Morjim. The court held that the grounds of arrest provided were legally sufficient and that the remand order passed by the JMFC, Pernem, suffered from no legal infirmity. Dhruva Morje, Dileep Morje and Dileep’s son were arrested for allegedly assaulting and attempting to murder Advocate Ankur Kumar and were remanded to police custody by the JMFC, Pernem, on July 19, 2026. Represented by Advocate Vinayak Porob, the petitioners limited their challenge to the legality of the first remand order, raising two primary objections: that the FIR assigned distinct roles to the petitioners yet supplied identical grounds of arrest to both, thereby violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution; and that the Magistrate was unduly influenced by a High Court Division Bench order in a related contempt matter, resulting in an arbitrary decision to grant police custody instead of judicial custody. Representing the State, Public Prosecutor S.G. Bhobe argued that both accused were charged with forming an unlawful assembly with a common object under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, making minor differences in individual roles irrelevant to the grounds of arrest. The prosecutor also contended that the attack targeted an officer of the court executing judicial orders, thereby striking at the administration of justice. The High Court noted that the petitioners were fully aware of the grounds of arrest prior to remand, had not raised the issue during their bail application before the Magistrate, and suffered no prejudice. Rejecting the petitioners’ contentions, the court observed that “The mere fact that the particulars of the offence given to the petitioner are identical to those given to his son cannot be a ground to declare the remand order illegal... The present challenge is, thus, simply disputative and fatuous.” The High Court clarified that the petitioners remain free to apply for regular bail before the competent trial court in accordance with law.