The communication of grounds for arrest must be in writing to satisfy constitutional requirements, and failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.

ORDER :

Sunder Mohan, J.

The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order of remand dated 23.08.2025 passed as against the petitioner by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, in Crime No.564 of 2025.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.08.2025 at about 9.30 hours, when the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police was in duty, he received a secret information about the illegal transport of Ganja; that based on the said information, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with the police team went to the scene of the occurrence near a ground at Madhavaram; that the team intercepted the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN03 AE 4890 and when the persons in the vehicle were enquired and a search was conducted, A1 was found in possession of 11.60 gms of MMDA Estacy Pills [23 Nos.], A2 was found in possession of 7 Nos. of LSD Stamp [0.12mg], A3 was in possession of 2.7gms of Methamphetamine and A4 and A5 were in possession of 2.30 gms of Methamphetamine each; that all five accused were arrested and on their confession, the petitioner herein arrayed as A6 was arrested and remanded on 23.08.2025, pursuant to the impugned remand order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner in writing as mandated in the Constitution and in Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., which is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments and even in the latest judgment in Mihir Rajesh shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2356.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed a counter affidavit signed by the Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police and would submit that the petitioner was arrested pursuant to confession of the co-accused on 23.08.2025; that the respondent had followed all the mandatory procedures prescribed for the arrest; that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest; that the petitioner was informed in writing of all the basic facts which necessitated the arrest and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to challenge the arrest and remand; and since the respondent had complied with the Constitutional and Statutory requirements, the learned Magistrate was justified in passing the order of remand and therefore, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside.

5. As stated earlier, the petitioner was arrested on the confession of the co-accused. No contraband was seized from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested one day after the other accused were arrested during a search made after a secret information. The counter of the Inspector of Police would vaguely state that the reason for arrest was informed to the petitioner and all basic facts that necessitated the arrest was communicated in writing to the petitioner. The respondent has not produced any such document before this Court.

6. Be that as it may, the respondent have not specifically stated that the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the petitioner in writing. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also unable to produce any document to substantiate that the grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioner in writing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case [cited supra] after referring to the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:

“33. The mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is unambiguous and clear in nature, it provides that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as they can be. It further provides