Routine Violations of Arrest Procedures: Allahabad HC Slams Police and Lower Courts, Grants Bail

In a strongly worded judgment that underscores the necessity of strictly adhering to constitutional mandates, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the release of a murder accused, Sandeep Baisoya, after observing systemic procedural lapses by the investigating agency and the Magistrate. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, presiding over the case, highlighted that the failure to communicate grounds of arrest and the disregard for established recovery protocols have become "routine practices" that require urgent corrective action.

The Backdrop: A Case Built on Procedural Fissures Sandeep Baisoya had been in custody since January 13, 2026, in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2026, pertaining to sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. During his bail plea, his counsel argued that his arrest was fundamentally flawed: the police neither provided the grounds of arrest to the accused nor prepared a valid disclosure memo (panchnama) at the police station before allegedly recovering a country-made pistol. Furthermore, the defense contended that the applicant deserved parity with a co-accused, Divyanshu, who had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench.

In response, the State, through an affidavit filed by a Sub-Inspector from the Tronica City police station, failed to refute these allegations, further compounding the procedural breakdown.

Legal Analysis: The Constitutional Mandate The Court’s decision was rooted in the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Subramanya vs. State of Karnataka . The High Court reiterated:

  • Communication of Grounds: Under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is not a procedural formality but a fundamental right. Non-compliance vitiates the arrest itself and, consequently, invalidates subsequent remand orders.
  • The Disclosure Memo Protocol: Before any recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a panchnama must be drawn at the police station in the presence of independent witnesses, ensuring the voluntariness and transparency of the recovery process.
  • Judicial Oversight: The Magistrate’s role is not that of a rubber stamp. The Court explicitly criticized the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Ghaziabad for using a "printed proforma" for remand orders without applying judicial mind, effectively ignoring the Supreme Court's clear instructions.

Key Observations Justice Deshwal was explicit in his critique of the current practices:

"The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)... non-compliance thereof would be violation of fundamental right which makes the remand itself illegal."

Highlighting the failure of the lower judiciary to act as a watchdog, the Court noted:

"From perusal of the remand order... it is clear that there is nothing but printed proforma which was subsequently filled up and signed by the CJM, Ghaziabad. This is not only non application of judicial mind ... but also clear violation of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court."

Referring to the standard for recovery, the Court highlighted the necessity of transparency:

"This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station... so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness."

The Verdict and Its Implications The High Court allowed the bail application, noting the lack of incriminating material and the procedural irregularities. Beyond the immediate relief granted to the applicant, the Court issued directives to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to address the systemic neglect of constitutional protocols by his officers. The CJM, Ghaziabad, was also cautioned to be more diligent in future remand proceedings to ensure that judicial mandates are not reduced to mere paperwork.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to investigative agencies that the efficiency of criminal investigation cannot come at the cost of the fundamental rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution.