Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was arrested on 22 February 2024 in connection with C.R. No.68 of 2020 registered at Malad Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. He was produced before the Sessions Court on 23 February 2024 and remanded to police custody, which was extended, and later to judicial custody. A charge-sheet was filed on 22 May 2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking declaration that his arrest was illegal and in gross violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and that the remand orders were null and void due to failure to comply with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court focused solely on the legality of the arrest and did not enter into the merits of the accusations. The petitioner's counsel argued that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing as required by Article 22(1) and Section 50 Cr.P.C., relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing. The State argued that oral communication was sufficient and that the arrest panchnama and station diary entries showed compliance. The intervenor argued that Pankaj Bansal was restricted to PMLA offences and that the requirement of written grounds applied only prospectively from the date of Prabir Purkayastha. The court rejected these arguments, holding that Article 22(1) mandates communication of grounds in writing as a matter of course, and that oral communication is insufficient. The court found that the arrest panchnama and station diary only recorded oral communication, which did not satisfy the constitutional mandate. Consequently, the arrest was declared illegal, and the subsequent remand orders were set aside. The court directed the release of the petitioner forthwith.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest - Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court examined whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal due to non-communication of grounds of arrest in writing. The court held that Article 22(1) mandates that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing as a matter of course, and oral communication is insufficient. The arrest was declared illegal and the remand orders were set aside. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Arrest - Compliance with Section 50 Cr.P.C. - Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court held that the requirement under Section 50 Cr.P.C. to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory and must be in writing. The arrest panchnama and station diary entries showing oral communication were held insufficient. The arrest was vitiated. (Paras 6-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Validity of Remand Orders - Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court held that since the arrest itself was illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 Cr.P.C., the subsequent remand orders were also null and void. The petitioner was ordered to be released. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India due to failure to comply with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the subsequent remand orders are null and void.
Final Decision
The court declared the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and set aside the remand orders. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith.
Law Points
- Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
- Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing
- non-compliance vitiates arrest
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
