Non-communication of grounds of arrest violates constitutional rights, but failure to raise objections during remand proceedings undermines claims of illegal arrest.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard Sri Praveen Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondents; and perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

"(i) Issue an order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (O.A.W.), Jhansi, to decide the pending application dated 29.04.2025, annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to the petition, strictly in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and reiterated by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 934 of 2025 (Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana Vs. State of U.P. & Others), annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the petition."

3. The petitioner contends that an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 396 of 2023 was registered against him under Sections 4 98 -A, 323, 506, 120-B, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, IPC , along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, DP Act at Police Station Navabad, District Jhansi, on 09.10.2023. He was arrested the following day, i.e., on 10.10.2023. It is specifically asserted that at the time of his arrest, the grounds thereof were neither disclosed to him nor communicated to any of his family members or any person authorized by him. Drawing attention to the arrest memo (Annexure No. 2), learned counsel submits that the same does not indicate any distinct column containing the grounds of arrest. When the petitioner was produced before the learned Remand Magistrate on 10.10.2023, the said irregularity was overlooked. It is further pointed out, referring to Annexure No. 1, the remand sheet, that the learned Magistrate did not record any observation regarding the non-compliance by the Investigating Officer in respect of the mandatory requirement of disclosing the grounds of arrest. Furthermore, the petitioner was not granted an effective opportunity of hearing at the stage of remand proceedings.

4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application dated 29.04.2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jhansi, praying for setting aside of the remand order in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) , LAWS (SC)-2024-5-46 Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus to the said court to expeditiously decide the pending application dated 29.04.2025, in consonance with the principles laid down in the judgments cited above.

5. Learned counsel has placed strong reliance on a catena of decisions including Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 8 SCC 1 (Paras 484-488) Prabir Purkayastha (Supra), Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India , LAWS (SC)-2023-10-3, Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana , LAWS (SC)-2025-2-20 (Para-21) and Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh , Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1662 of 2025 decided on 25.03.2025 These decisions, it is contended, underscore the imperative of compliance with the mandate of Section 50 Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of