The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest and to ensure access to legal representation is a mandatory constitutional safeguard under Articles 21 and 22.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

This writ petition has been filed by Pankaj Bhandari, who is the 9^th accused in Crime No.3701/2025 and 12^th accused in Crime No.3700/2025, registered by Crime Branch, Kollam. The prayers are as under:

“i. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the arrest of the Petitioner on 19.12.2025 in FIR No. 3700 of 2025 and FIR No. 3701 of 2025 registered by the Crime Branch, Kollam is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

ii. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the remand order dated 19.12.2025 in FIR No. 3700 of 2025 and FIR No. 3701 of 2025 registered by the Crime Branch, Kollam and all consequential and subsequent remand orders passed by the Hon'ble Enquiry Commission & Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam, and declare the same as null and void having been rendered in breach of mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards.

iii. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the continued custody of the Petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid illegal arrest and vitiated remand orders is unsustainable in law.

iv. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the release of the Petitioner in FIR No. 3700 of 2025 and FIR No.3701 of 2025 registered by the Crime Branch.

v. Any other relief(s) or order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution appearing for the prosecution. Perused the relevant records.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued at length based on the decisions of the Apex Court mainly to contend that the arrest of the accused in the above crimes recorded on 19.12.2025 is illegal, since his fundamental and statutory rights as explained by the Apex Court have been violated. The argument notes filed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is as under:

1. The Petitioner has challenged his (i) arrest dt. 19.12.2025, (ii)remand order dt. 19.12.2025 and (iii) all subsequent remands – praying for his forthwith release from illegal custody in view of the violation of his constitutional and statutory rights as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following rulings:

1.1.Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 (“Prabir Purkayastha”)

1.2. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana , 2025 5 SCC 799 (“Vihaan Kumar”)

1.3. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra , 2025 SCC OnLine 256 (“Mihir Rajesh Shah”)

1.4.Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors., 1994 4 SCC 260 (“Joginder Kumar”)

2. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid rulings required the Respondents to ensure that the following constitutional/statutory safeguards were adhered to in making the Petitioner’s arrest and subjecting him to subsequent remand:

2.1. Issue-1 : The written Grounds of Arrest provided to the Petitioner are mechanical and vague and do not justify/or disclose necessity of arrest of the Petitioner. [Ground P to T/WP]

[NOTE: See Prabir Purkayastha @ para 37 & 48]

“37. The interpretation given by the learned Single Judge that the grounds of arrest were conveyed to the accused in writing vide the arrest memo is unacceptable on the face of the record because the arrest memo does not indicate the grounds of arrest being incorporated in the said document. Column No. 9 of the arrest memo(Annexure P-7) which is being reproduced hereinbelow simply sets out the ‘reasons for arrest’ which are formal in nature and can be generally attributed to any person arrested on accusation of an offence whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be personal in natur