9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarding their legal rights. Bare perusal of the judgments of Joginder Kumar [ 1994 (4) TMI 385 - SUPREME COURT] and Siddharth [ 2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT] makes it clear that the Indian Supreme Court has always been very sensitive and conscious about the individual s rights. The jurisprudence which is being evolved is that the police may not arrest a person only because it s permissible, the arrest should be justified also and must have grounds of arrest communicated forthwith. It is a settled proposition that the absence of specific grounds of arrest violates statutory and constitutional rights under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Any person has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner administered drinks laced with intoxicants, rendering her unconscious. She alleged that during these instances, the petitioner s friends sexually assaulted her without her consent. The complainant has further leveled serious accusations of mental, physical, and sexual abuse against the petitioner and his parents, implicating them in acts of coercion and complicity. The detailed facts are not elaborated here as the petitioner has approached this Court primarily to challenge the legality of his arrest. 3. Sh. Manu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the arrest of the petitioner by the investigating agency was carried out in contravention of the principles of law, as the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the investigating agency failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C and the arrest memo prepared at the time of the petitioner s arrest did not disclose any grounds of arrest. In light of the clear violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C and in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, it has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant therein. However, Paragraph No.50 of the said Judgment, which has been quoted above, does show that the Apex Court was of the opinion that the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the Appellant therein or his Counsel which is not in the present case. 34. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner herein has not been deprived of the information of the grounds of arrest as it was forwarded to his Advocate appointed by him by executing a proper Vakalatnama which is on record. The Ld. ASG submits that this ground has been taken by the Petitioner herein only in this Court after the Judgment of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This contention cannot be accepted but for the reason that a Judgment of the Apex Court is declaratory in nature and, therefore, the fact that this ground was not taken by the Petitioner earlier does not preclude the Petitioner to raise this argument. 6. The learned Additional Standing Counsel further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the aforementioned case, held that the constituti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Cr. PC provides as under; 50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. 13. The bare perusal of it makes it clear that the law mandates the police officer to inform the arrested individual of the full particulars of the offence or the grounds for arrest. The requirement to convey these details is not a mere formality but a fundamental safeguard to uphold the individual's right to liberty under the Constitution of India. The Courts have time and again deprecated the practice of filling up columns in proforma indicating the formal reasons for which the accused was being arrested. It is also pertinent to note that Section 50 Cr. P.C. uses the word forthwith. which implies that grounds for such arrest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers only in those cases in which it was genuinely necessary to enable them to execute their duty to prevent the commission of offences, to investigate crime. The Royal Commission was of the view that such restrictions would diminish the use of arrest and produce more uniform use of powers. The Royal Commission Report on Criminal Procedure Sir Cyril Philips at p. 45 said: ... we recommend that detention upon arrest for an offence should continue only on one or more of the following criteria: (a) the person's unwillingness to identify himself so that a summons may be served upon him; (b) the need to prevent the continuation or repetition of that offence; (c) the need to protect the arrested person himself or other persons or property; (d) the need to secure or preserve evidence of or relating to that offence or to obtain such evidence from the suspect by questioning him; and (e) the likelihood of the person failing to appear at court to answer any charge made against him. The Royal Commission in the above said report at p. 46 also suggested: To help to reduce the use of arrest we would also propose the introduction here of a scheme that is used in Ontario enabling a police office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do. 21. Then, there is the right to have someone informed. That right of the arrested person, upon request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognised by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 in England (Civil Actions Against the Police Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson; p. 313). That section provides: [W]here a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend or relative or other person w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... municated forthwith. 19. Recently, in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused expeditiously. The practice of filling generic reasons in proforma arrest memos was strongly deprecated. 20. It is a settled proposition that the absence of specific grounds of arrest violates statutory and constitutional rights under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Any person has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Reliance may be placed upon Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine 1244) 21. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it was further inter alia held as under; . 30. Furthermore, the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcise in futility. .. 43. We do not feel persuaded to examine these aspects at this stage because the same would require entering into the merits of the case. This would be within the domain of the court examining the matter after the filing of the chargesheet. The core issue in this appeal is regarding the illegality of the process whereby the appellant was arrested and remanded to police custody which does not require examining the merits of the case. 45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 46. Now, coming to the aspect as to whether the grounds of arrest were actually conveyed to the appellant in writing before he was remanded to the custody of the investigating officer. 47. We have carefully perused the arrest memo (Annexure P-7) and find that the same nowhere conveys the grounds on which the accused was being arrested. The arrest memo is si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various judicial pronouncements. We are satisfied that there is a flagrant violation of Section 50 of the Cr, PC. As well as Article 22 (1) the constitution of India, and since the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the petitioner, making his arrest illegal. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and we declare that the arrest of the petitioner in relation to FIR No. 1191 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 is illegal and in gross violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner and the consequential remand order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the J.M.F.C., Karad as well as the subsequent remand orders are null and void. In view of the declaration, the petitioner deserves to be released forthwith from the custody on furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above terms. We must clarify that the observations made in the present Writ Petition would not effect the merits of the case, but are restricted to the claim raised by the petitioner about the illegality of the arrest. 23. At this juncture, it would be advantageous to reproduce the arrest memo of the present case which is as follows; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner was arrested on 25.04.2024 and his application for remand was moved on 25.04.2024 itself as recorded in para -25 of the order in W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 in relation to FIR No.RC-05/2023/NIA/DLI registered by NIA. It is also relevant to note that Section 43 B of UAPA,1967 provides that any officer arresting a person under Section 43A of UAPA,1967 shall, as soon as may be, inform of the grounds of arrest. Thus, it is relevant to note that Section 43B of UAPA,1967 does not speak of the word forthwith . It may also be noted that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2024 at 12.40 PM and remand application was moved on 05.11.2024. 30. The Court considers that the arrest of the present petitioner in case FIR No.4/2023 dated 12.01.2023 registered under Sections 498A/406/328/376/109/34 IPC at PS Tuglak Road is illegal and is required to be set aside. Let the petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court. 31. The court makes it clear that the present order been passed for release of the petitioner on the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
