9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1104 - SC - Indian LawsViolation of the appellant s right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India - appellant was not informed of the grounds for his arrest - offences under Sections 409 420 467 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - As far as Article 22(1) is concerned compliance can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same. Therefore it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands - Once a person is arrested his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the objects stated. The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that as provided in Article 21 no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law - In a given case if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. Therefore in a given case even assuming that the case of the police regarding requirements of Article 22(1) of the constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in the case diary there must be a contemporaneous record which records what the grounds of arrest were. When an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police - When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made. The reason is that due to non-compliance the arrest is rendered illegal; therefore the arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. It is the obligation of all the Courts to uphold the fundamental rights. Conclusion - i) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. ii) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the appellant's arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for arrest. Additionally, the Court examined whether the appellant's treatment during arrest and subsequent detention, including being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Violation of Article 22(1) - Communication of Grounds of Arrest - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds for arrest. Section 50 of the CrPC mandates that the arresting officer communicate the full particulars of the offence or other grounds for arrest. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which emphasize the necessity of meaningful communication of arrest grounds. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court underscored that the requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right. The communication must be meaningful, ensuring the arrested person fully understands the reasons for arrest. The Court noted that mere verbal communication or informing a third party does not suffice. - Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant contended that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, a claim not adequately refuted by the respondents. The police only informed the appellant's wife, which the Court found insufficient. The arrest memo and case diary did not contain the grounds of arrest, further supporting the appellant's claim. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha to conclude that the appellant's arrest violated Article 22(1) due to the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest directly to him. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the grounds were communicated to the appellant's wife and included in the remand report. The Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that communication must be directly to the arrestee and contemporaneous with the arrest. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellant's arrest was illegal due to the violation of Article 22(1), necessitating his immediate release. Violation of Article 21 - Treatment During Detention - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found the appellant's treatment, being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, violated his dignity and Article 21 rights. The Court emphasized that such treatment is unacceptable and directed the State to issue guidelines to prevent similar occurrences. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the admission by the Medical Superintendent and the affidavit from the Assistant Commissioner of Police acknowledging the appellant's treatment. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Article 21 principles to determine that the appellant's treatment was a violation of his fundamental rights. - Conclusions: The Court directed the State to ensure such violations do not recur, emphasizing the need for guidelines to uphold constitutional safeguards. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Court held that the requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1). Non-compliance renders the arrest illegal and violates Article 21. - The Court emphasized that the communication of arrest grounds must be meaningful, in a language understood by the arrestee, and directly to the arrestee. - The Court noted that informing a third party, such as the arrestee's spouse, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement. - The Court reiterated that any violation of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent custody, regardless of subsequent legal processes such as remand or chargesheet filing. - The Court directed the appellant's immediate release due to the violation of his constitutional rights. - The Court instructed the State to issue guidelines to prevent similar violations in the future, particularly regarding the treatment of detainees and adherence to constitutional safeguards.
|
