9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seek bail. Thus, the "grounds of arrest" would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the "reasons of arrest" which are general in nature.' An I.O. can therefore no longer treat the matter of serving the grounds of arrest upon an arrestee with any levity. It is in this context that this court has carefully analysed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State in the present case; and the following position has emerged from the analysis - The phrase "grounds for such arrest" appears both in section 50 Cr.P.C. as well as in section 19 of the PMLA. However, there is a significant difference between the words that precede the phrase "grounds for such arrest" in the said two provisions. Without addressing the controversy as to whether the petitioner stood deprived of his liberty once he reached the police station at 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024, there can be no contest that the petitioner was formally arrested when the arrest memo was issued to him i.e., at 06:30 p.m. on 17.05.2024. In compliance of section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as interpreted above, the I.O. was required to serve the grounds of arrest upon the petitioner simultaneously with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Pursuant to notice being issued on the present petition on 28.05.2024, the State has filed Status Report dated 08.06.2024 in the matter. PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS 6. Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has premised his challenge to the impugned order on the following 03 principal grounds : 6.1 Firstly, it is contended that admittedly the grounds of arrest were never communicated to the petitioner until after the filing of the remand application by the I.O. before the learned Magistrate; and that therefore, the petitioner's arrest and remand were both illegal in light of the rulings of Co-ordinate Benches of this court in Pranav Kuckreja vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9549 and Kshitij Ghildiyal vs. Director General of GST Intelligence, Delhi 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8949; 6.2 Secondly, it is submitted that in any case the petitioner was not produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, and the petitioner must be taken to have been arrested at 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024 when he was detained at P.S.: Kamla Market, Delhi by the I.O.; and 6.3 Lastly, it is argued that the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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" have to be communicated at the time of the arrest. This requirement is designed to ensure that the arrested individual is promptly made aware of the reasons for their detention, thereby safeguarding their legal rights. "14. There are numerous instances where arrested persons alleged serious violation of procedures enshrined in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly; within a reasonable time under the circumstances; with all convenient dispatch". This implies that the "grounds for such arrest" have to be communicated at the earliest. Reading this otherwise may not justify the requirement of Section 50 Cr.P.C. "27. The Courts, while examining the implementation of procedural safeguards emanating out of the constitutional rights, have to give strict interpretation. Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the "grounds of arrest" in compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C. has to be supplied "forthwith" as discussed above. ***** "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." 10. Furthermore, it has been argued that the petitioner's arrest and remand in the present case is also in the teeth of the view taken by another Co-ordinate Bench in Ks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. 12. It is further the argument of the petitioner, that a reading of Status Report dated 08.06.2024 would show that the petitioner, alongwith other co-accused persons, was called to the police station where he reached at around 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024, [Para 3 of Status Report dated 08.06.2024] but he was produced before the learned Magistrate only at around 4:00 p.m. on 18.05.2024 as recorded in the impugned order. 13. Furthermore Mr. Pujari points-out, that the observations of the learned Magistrate in remand order dated 18.05.2024 are also relevant in the above respect, which order reads as follows: "IO moved an application seeking PC remand of accused for two days. Case diaries perused. It is submitted by the IO that the accused has been arrested in this case. IO further submits that arrest of the accused was necessary for proper investigation of this case. It is further submitted by the IO that information regarding arrest of accused has been given to his wife. IO submits that co-accused is yet to be arrested from Nepal and Dehradun, hence, PC remand of the accused is necessary. Upon enquiry, IO has submitted that he had orally communicated the grounds of arrest to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f PC cited by the IO, it is necessary to remand the accused for two days so that co-accused persons Maya and Meena can be arrested from Nepal and Dehradun respectively. In order to ensure fair investigation and for arresting of co-accused persons, sufficiency of grounds is being made out for granting PC remand of accused for two days. Accordingly, accused is remanded to two days PC. Medical examination be done as per rules, to be conducted after every 24 hours. All the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi be complied with. Accused be produced on 20.05.2024. Copy of FIR be provided to the accused. Copy of the order be given dasti to the IO as well as counsel for accused." (emphasis supplied) 14. It is submitted however, that what is recorded in the impugned order, namely that the petitioner was arrested at 06:30 p.m. on 17.05.2024 is clearly incorrect and contrary to what the I.O. has admitted in the status report filed in the matter, where the I.O. expressly says that on the instructions of the police officials, the petitioner had reached the police station at about 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024. 15. Upon being queried as to how the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, that the petitioner was arrested once the I.O. was satisfied that there was sufficient material on record to arrest him i.e., after the statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the victim had identified the petitioner as the 'Manager' of the establishment which was engaging in activities punishable inter alia under the ITP Act. Accordingly, Mr. Utkarsh has argued, that it was subsequent to the petitioner being identified by the victim that the petitioner was arrested; Arrest Memo dated 17.05.2024 was drawn-up, which clearly recorded the date and time of arrest as 17.05.2024 at 06:30 p.m.; and thereafter, in compliance of the provisions of section 57 Cr.P.C., the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate considered the I.O.'s remand application and passed the impugned order at 05:30 p.m. on 18.05.2024. 22. Furthermore, to rebut the contention that the petitioner was not served with the grounds of arrest 'forthwith' as required under section 50 Cr.P.C., it is argued on behalf of the State, that the grounds of arrest were duly served upon the petitioner at 04:40 p.m. on 18.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrest. It is accordingly submitted that the discrepancy referred to by the petitioner is irrelevant. PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION IN REJOINDER 26. Rebutting Mr. Utkarsh's contentions, Mr. Pujari points-out that even though the petitioner in Pranav Kuckreja (supra) was never served with the grounds of arrest at all, in that judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench has categorically expressed its view as to the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest 'forthwith' to an arrestee under section 50 Cr.P.C. In this regard, Mr. Pujari has drawn attention to paras 26 and 27 of Pranav Kuckreja (supra) extracted above. 27. In support of the petitioner's case, Mr. Pujari has also cited a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ashak Hussain Allah Detha vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay 1990 SCC OnLine Bom 3, to submit that the distinction being sought to be drawn by the State between 'detention' and 'arrest' of the petitioner is purely facetious. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has relied on the following paragraph of the said judgment of the Bombay High Court : "9. Admittedly, the applicants were detained without any authority, from the midnight of 20th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons for arrest" as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the "grounds of arrest" would be required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the "grounds of arrest" would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the "reasons of arrest" which are general in nature." (emphasis supplied) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 2011, had an occasion to interpret the expression "as soon as may be" and it observed thus : (SCC OnLine SC para 6) "6. Sub-section (1) imposes on the Government two duties, namely, (i) the duty of communicating to the detenue the grounds on which the order has been made, and (ii) the duty of affording him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order to the Government. The first duty is to be performed "as soon as may be". Quite clearly the period of time predicated by the phrase "as soon as may be" begins to run from the time the detention in pursuance of the detention order begins. The question is -- what is the span of time, which is designated by the words "as soon as may be"? The observations of Dysant, J. in King's Old Country Ltd. v. Liquid Carbonic Can. Corpn. Ltd. [King's Old Country Ltd. v. Liquid Carbonic Can. Corpn. Ltd., (1942) 2 WWR 603] , WWR at p. 606 quoted in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edn., Vol. 1, p. 200 are apposite. Said the learned Judge, 'to do a thing "as soon as possible" means to do it within a reasonable time, with an understanding to do it within the shortest possible time'. Likewise to communicate the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, in our opinion the person arrested, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India." (emphasis supplied) 30.5 While interpreting the phrase "as soon as may be" appearing in section 19 of the PMLA therefore, the Supreme Court has held that since an arrestee is to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. It is important to not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arrest Memo' requiring the I.O./A.O. to pen-down the grounds of arrest then-and-there, which would streamline and ensure that such grounds are communicated to the arrestee forthwith at the time of issuing the arrest memo. 31. In light of the above, without addressing the controversy as to whether the petitioner stood deprived of his liberty once he reached the police station at 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024, there can be no contest that the petitioner was formally arrested when the arrest memo was issued to him i.e., at 06:30 p.m. on 17.05.2024. In compliance of section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as interpreted above, the I.O. was required to serve the grounds of arrest upon the petitioner simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest memo. This was admittedly not done. 32. Accordingly, in the opinion of this court, the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandate of section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. 33. Furthermore, a perusal of order dated 18.05.2024, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant a 02-day police custody remand of the petitioner, shows that the learned Magistrate proceeded on the basis that communication of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
