Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Vikas Chawla @ Vicky – Petitioner
Versus
The State Nct Of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4845 of 2024 & CRL.M.A. 18207 of 2024, CRL.M.A. 18283 of 2024
Decided on : 28-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420/468/471 - Quashing of bail cancellation - The petitioner sought to quash the order cancelling his bail on grounds of non-compliance with procedural mandates under Cr.P.C. - The court found that the notice under Section 41-A was not validly served and that grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing - The court emphasized that such procedural lapses violate the principles of personal liberty and due process. (Paras 12, 18, 58)
(B) Revision Petition - Maintainability - The court held that an order declining police custody remand is a final order and thus amenable to revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. - The court distinguished between interlocutory and final orders in the context of bail and remand. (Paras 37, 44)
(C) Grounds of Arrest - The court reiterated that the grounds of arrest must be served in writing at the time of arrest, failing which the arrest is rendered illegal. (Paras 51, 56)
(D) Procedural Compliance - The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural mandates as laid down in prior judgments to safeguard personal liberty. (Paras 58, 59)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was entitled to remain on bail as the procedural lapses invalidated the cancellation of his bail.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the maintainability of the revision petition, validity of notice under Section 41-A, compliance with the requirement of grounds of arrest, and the implications of procedural non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. are fundamental to ensuring personal liberty and that the failure to comply with these requirements invalidates the arrest and subsequent actions.
Result: Petition allowed; order cancelling bail set aside.
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
1.In what is arguably the most celebrated dissent in the history of Indian jurisprudence, it was said :
“… … The history of personal liberty, we must bear in mind, is largely the history of insistence upon procedure. … …”
(H.R. Khanna, J. in ADM, Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521)
2. By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the learned Sessions Court has cancelled the regular bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 28.03.2024 made in case FIR No. 200/2024 dated 13.03.2024 registered under sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S.: I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi ("subject FIR").
3. Vide order dated 28.03.2024 the learned ACMM had “made absolute” the interim bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 21.03.2024 made by a predecessor learned Magistrate.
4. Notice on the present petition was issued on 07.06.2024; pursuant to which Status Reports dated 11.06.2024 and 29.08.2024 have been filed in the matter.
5. Vide order dated 14.06.2024 passed in the present proceedings, the petitioner was granted interim protection against any coercive action, which has been continued from time-to-time. Subsequently, as recorded in order dated 09.10.2024, the State has informed the court that in the meantime, the petitioner was arrested in a different case. However, since the present proceedings are confined to case FIR No.200/2024, this court refrains from making any observations relating to any other matter.
6. The court has heard Ms. Rebecca M. John, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG who has appeared for the State.
BRIEF FACTS
7. Briefly, the accusation against the petitioner is that he had assisted an Afghan national to emigrate to Spain, based on a fraudulently obtained Indian passport alongwith an Aadhaar Card and a PAN Card, in consideration of having received money from the said person. This led to registration of the subject FIR, in which however the petitioner was not named and the only named accused was one – Arjeet Singh.
8. In the course of investigation, the petitioner was summonsed by way of a notice dated 16.03.2024 purportedly issued under section 41-A Cr.P.C. to appear before the investigating officer on 17.03.2024. Since the petitioner did not join the investigation on that date, a fresh notice was issued on 19.03.2024 requiring the petitioner to join investigation on 20.03.2024.
9. In compliance of notice dated 19.03.2024, the petitioner presented himself before the investigating officer on 20.03.2024; and after being interrogated, the petitioner was arrested by the investigating officer on the same day.
10. Subsequently, two applications came to be filed before the learned Magistrate, one by the investigating officer seeking police custody remand, and the second, by the petitioner seeking bail. Vide common order dated 21.03.2024, police custody remand was declined by the learned Magistrate and the petitioner was granted interim bail for 05 days; which was subsequently extended and by order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the learned ACMM, the bail granted to the petitioner was “made absolute”.
11. Order dated 21.03.2024 granting interim bail and order dated 28.03.2024 confirming such bail were challenged by the State by way of a revision petition bearing Criminal Revision Petition No.197/2024 before the learned Sessions Court, which petition has been allowed vide order dated 06.06.2024, thereby cancelling the petitioner's bail.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS
12. Ms. John, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following 04 contentions in support of their case :
12.1. That the revision petition filed by the
Procedural lapses in serving notice and grounds of arrest invalidate the arrest, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with legal mandates to protect personal liberty.
The court affirmed that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused, ensuring compliance with constitutional rights and enabling effective legal defense.
The arrest of an individual must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including providing specific grounds for arrest, which must be communicated in writing to ensure the accused's ....
The court reaffirmed that informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional requirement, and non-compliance invalidates the arrest and remand.
Cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy by public servant – Short delay in informing the person of reason for arrest is permissible.
The requirement to provide written grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and failure to comply renders the arrest illegal.
The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional obligation that, if breached, may vitiate the legality of the arrest.
Arrest may be authorised only if concerned officer has ‘reason to believe’ and there is `satisfaction qua an arrest’ that person has committed an offence – There must be a direct nexus or live link b....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
