In the matter of: Joyatu Mondal VS .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BIVAS PATTANAYAK
In the matter of: Joyatu Mondal – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anirban Tarafdar Mr. Souma Bhattacharya, Mr. Atanu Bhattacharya, Ms. Rupsa Ganguli, Mr. Sayak Kumar, Ms. Anju Barik, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Advocates
For the State:Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P., Mr. Arindam Sen, Ms. Pushpita Saha, Advocates
For the De-facto Complainant:Mr. Manabendranath Banerjee, Ms. Tapasi Das, Advocates

JUDGMENT

The Investigating Officer is present in Court. He files his explanation in compliance to the order dated 8th May, 2025, which is taken on record.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the time of incident was a juvenile. The grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the petitioner in compliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Prabir Purukayastha -versus- State (N.C.T. of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in D.K. Basu -versus- State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1997 SC 610, he submits that at the time of arrest of the arrestee the police officer has to prepare the memo of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made and it shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. Though the arrest memo has the counter signature of the arrestee but it does not have the signature of any member of the family of the arrestee or any respectable person of the locality which is an i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document