The constitutional requirement of communicating grounds of arrest is essential, and failure to do so renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNS S by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Th. Rampur P.S. Case No.04 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.05 of 2025 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Th. Rampur, Kalahandi, for commission of offences punishable U/S.103(1) of , on the allegation of committing murder of deceased Laxman Majhi.

2. Heard Mr.S.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.

3. It is undisputed that the petitioners by way of a bail application have raised a point before the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi that since the grounds of arrest was not communicated to the petitioners, their arrest being vitiated and illegal, the subsequent remand of the petitioners to custody is also illegal and thereby, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail, but the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi while passing the order refusing to grant bail to the petitioners has observed that the decisions in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Another; 2025 (1) OLR (SC) 464 & Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi); 2024 (2) Crimes 293 (SC) are not applicable to the petitioners in this case, since the accused persons in the relied on cases were not involved in any heinous offences, however, the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi without discussing the ratio that has been laid down by the Apex Court in these two decisions has made this observation.

4. Be that as it may, in Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has observed the following at paragraphs-28 & 31:-

“28. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by Article22(1) of the Constitution.

31. The learned Single Judge, unfortunately, has equated information given regarding the appellant’s arrest with the grounds of arrest. The observation that the allegation of non-supply of the grounds of arrest made by the appellant is a bald allegation is completely uncalled for. All courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in one way or the other. When a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to grounds of arrest, there can be possible two contentions raised: (a) that the arrested person was not informed of the grounds of arrest, or (b) purported information of grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of arrest. As far as the first contention is concerned, the person who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply alleging that grounds of arrest were not informed to him. If such an allegation is made in the pleadings, the entire burden is on the arresting agency or the State to satisfy the court that effective compliance was made with the requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous.”

4.1. Similarly, in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Apex Court in Paragraphs-20, 22, 25, 26, 30, 49 & 50 has observed as follows:-

“20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offences has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to dilu