9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 ('ITP Act') at P.S.: Kamla Market, Delhi. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was the 'Manager' of an establishment which was inter alia engaged in the sexual abuse and exploitation of victims and was living-of the gains of such activity, based on which allegation the subject FIR came to be registered against the petitioner. 4. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer ('I.O.') moved an application seeking the petitioner's custody; and vide order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner was remanded to police custody for 02 days. The petitioner was thereafter remanded to judicial custody for 14 days vide order dated 20.05.2024 passed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254. 9. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pujari has drawn attention to the following paras of Pranav Kuckreja (supra) : "9. The short question involved in the present case is whether the grounds for the petitioner's arrest were duly communicated in compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court's judgment in Pravir Purkayastha (supra). ***** "12. Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. 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. [Underscoring in extraction] (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the fundamental basis for the arrested individual to seek legal advice, challenge the remand, and apply for bail. "25. In the context of present case, it is pertinent to mention that Section 50 Cr. P.C. uses the word "forthwith". The dictionary meaning of the word "forthwith" as defined in the Shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles, fifth edition, volume - 01 A-M is (1) Along with, at the same time; and (2) Immediately, at one, without delay. "26. The term 'forthwith' in legal parlance also generally implies an action that must be taken without unreasonable delay. It suggests promptness and urgency. The expression 'forthwith' has also been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition as "forthwith, adv. (14c) 1. Immediately; without delay. 2. Directly; promptly; 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 interp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments during the remand, is a specious argument. ***** "40. A constitutional mandate must be understood and implemented in its right and rational perspective, and not cursorily and casually. Even if assuming, in favour of the prosecution, that the narrative in the remand application amounted to grounds of arrest , furnishing the said application just before the remand hearing would effectively negate and nullify the duty to inform meaningfully and at the earliest." 11. In this legal backdrop, it is the petitioner's argument that a perusal of the arrest memo would show that the arrest memo is completely silent about, and contains no reference to, the grounds of arrest. This submission is borne-out on a perusal of the arrest memo, which has been shown to the court from the police file. 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 recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person to seek a legal counsel who can present his case before the court and oppose his remand. In the present case, the IO had orally informed the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest. The accused had adequately ensured his legal representation since his counsel had opposed his remand by filing of appropriate application. Moreover, the written grounds of arrest were also communicated to the accused and his counsel at 4.40 pm i.e., within 24 hours of arrest. This remand order is being passed at 5.30 pm, after giving adequate opportunity to the counsel for accused to present his case. The allegations against the accused are serious in nature. He has been accused u/s 342/344/368/370/370A/372/373/ 376/120B/34 IPC and 3/4/5/6 ITP Act. As per the disclosure statement and grounds of 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 exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of section 50 Cr.P.C. 19. In the circumstances, it is argued that the petitioner's arrest and remand are both illegal; and the petitioner deserves to be released from custody forthwith. STATE'S SUBMISSIONS 20. Arguing on behalf of the State, Mr. Utkarsh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has sought to draw a distinction between the terms detention and arrest, submitting that 'detention' of a person is not the same as 'arrest' since arrest means formally taking a person into custody. Learned APP submits, that in the present case, once the petitioner reached the police station at around 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024, he was questioned and remained within the police station in the sense of being bound-down or detained but he was not arrested till 6:30 p.m. 21. Learned APP submits, 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, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is to be produced before the court within 24 hours of his arrest, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest would be within 24 hours of arrest. 25. Furthermore, Mr. Utkarsh has sought to refute the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner as regards the discrepancy in the grounds of arrest supplied to the petitioner and those mentioned in the remand application, by submitting that there is no legal obligation that the grounds of arrest must be specifically set-out in a remand application. It is submitted that the law permits that the grounds of arrest maybe detailed in a remand application which is served upon an accused; however, there is no mandatory requirement that every remand application must contain the grounds of 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n before the Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Pranav Gupta and Anr. [Order dated 18.03.2024 passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3214-3215/2024] ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS 29. The requirement of serving upon an arrestee the 'grounds of arrest' (or grounds for arrest as it is alternatively phrased) as distinct from citing the 'reasons for arrest' for seeking remand has gained much significance in light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. In its verdict in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between the 'grounds of arrest' and 'reasons for arrest', observing as follows: "48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest". The "reasons 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 acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (emphasis supplied) 30.4 In its decision in Ram Kishor Arora (supra), the Supreme Court has dealt with phraseology of section 19 PMLA, and in that context, it has been held as under: "19. In view of the above, the interpretation of the expression "as soon as may be" assumes significance. In our opinion, the interpretation of the said expression should not detain us more in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of J&K [Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of J&K, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 6 : AIR 1957 SC 281]. In the said case, the Constitution Bench while interpreting Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of safeguard a duty is cast upon the officer concerned to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the adjudicating authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the court concerned within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, 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. "22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929], it has been categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. It is also observed 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 gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person's arrest have been formulated in the investigating officer's mind, there can possibly be no reason why those grounds cannot be reduced into writing and communicated to the person simultaneously at the time of arrest. 30.9 Therefore, in the opinion of this court, any other connotation of the word "forthwith" would not only dilute the plain meaning of that word but would also erode the fundamental right of a person not to be deprived of his liberty, without being expressly and formally informed as to why he was being arrested, so also to enable him to seek legal recourse against such arrest. 30.10 It must also be observed that in its decision in Pranav Kuckereja (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench has in fact suggested that a column be incorporated in the format of an '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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restee to engage and confer with legal counsel, the test being that the arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand to police custody or judicial custody. 37. Accordingly, remand order dated 18.05.2024 also stands vitiated and is set-aside. 38. As a sequitur to the above, the petitioner is directed to be released from custody, unless required in any other case. 39. However, since the petitioner's arrest is being set-aside on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, but the petitioner must continue to participate in the proceedings arising from the subject FIR in which chargesheet has been filed, this court deems it appropriate to direct that the petitioner - Marfing Tamang s/o Karnal @ Karan Bahadur Tamang - shall be released from judicial custody, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 02 local sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. 40. Needless to add, nothing in this judgment is an expression on the merits of the pending case. 41. As a result, the present petition is allowed, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
