Non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 Cr.P.C. vitiates arrest and remand, necessitating communication of grounds for arrest and provision of legal aid.

JUDGMENT :

(Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anupam Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondents, and Shri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the informant – respondent No. 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned remand order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in First Information report dated 15.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No.77 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, and to direct the release of the petitioner on personal bond as the investigation is still ongoing.

3. Shri Anupam Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the core issue involved in the petition is not the merits of the allegations mentioned in the FIR but the illegality in the process of arrest and procedural lapses during the remand proceedings. He places reliance upon the arrest memo and states that it was a printed proforma which did not contain any column specifying the grounds or reasons for arrest. It is argued that neither the reasons for the arrest nor the grounds were communicated in writing to the petitioner at the time of arrest, as per mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions under Section 50 CrPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that immediately after the arrest, the petitioner was produced before the learned remand Magistrate on 26.12.2024 and was remanded to judicial custody through a printed remand order, which does not mention whether any opportunity of hearing was granted to the accused to contest his custodial detention. He further submits that the petitioner has confined his relief to the extent that he was not provided with any grounds of arrest or particulars, whereas the arrest memo merely mentions the petitioner's name and place of arrest.

5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrest violates Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection against arrest and detention without being informed of the grounds thereof. He also submits that, as per constitutional mandate, the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one’s choice must be ensured. These rights are designed to ensure that no person is arrested or detained without being informed of the reasons for such action. He also refers to Section 50 Cr.P.C. (now Section 47 BNSS), which provides that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him the full particulars of the offence or other grounds for such arrest. He places further reliance upon Section 50A Cr.P.C. (now Section 48 BNSS), which imposes an obligation on the arresting officer to inform a nominated person about the arrest and mandates that such information must be recorded in a register maintained at the police station. It is further submitted that the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, must ensure compliance with sub-sections (2) and (3). It is argued that the remand order is mechanical and does not reflect any judicial satisfaction regarding the necessity of judicial custody.

6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrest of the petitioner and the consequential remand order are liable to be set aside due to non-communication of the grounds of arrest.

7. Per contra, Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-I, opposed the relief and has placed instructions on record. He submits that considering the FIR dated 15.02.2024 and the alleged complicity of the petitioner, no relief should be accorded to the petitioner in the instant case.

8. The relief is also opposed by Shri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the informant. He vehemently contends that no relief may be accorded and th