Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Nitin Kumar Singh @ Nitin Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of UP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the arrest and legal challenge. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenges to legality of arrest and procedural issues. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. state's defense against claims of illegal detention. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's consideration of submissions and documentation. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. implications of article 22(1) and section 50 cr.p.c. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. importance of compliance with article 22 regarding arrest. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. substantial compliance and the principle of substance over form. (Para 16 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard, Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Ashutosh Mishra and Shri Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Roopak Chaubey, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), representing the State Respondents.
3. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that his arrest in connection with the aforesaid Case Crime No.290 of 2025 is illegal and ab initio void for being in blatant violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C . / Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, as interpreted by the Court. Consequently, the petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus dir
The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing does not render detention illegal if substantial compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates is demonstrated.
The court reaffirmed that informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional requirement, and non-compliance invalidates the arrest and remand.
(1) Arrest – Any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under provisions of UAPA or any other offences has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about grounds of arrest....
Cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy by public servant – Short delay in informing the person of reason for arrest is permissible.
The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused constitutes a violation of constitutional rights, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional obligation that, if breached, may vitiate the legality of the arrest.
The court affirmed that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused, ensuring compliance with constitutional rights and enabling effective legal defense.
The arrest of an individual must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including providing specific grounds for arrest, which must be communicated in writing to ensure the accused's ....
Absence of written grounds of arrest does not mandate bail absent prejudice; substantial compliance via awareness suffices in serious offences, especially pre-'henceforth' rulings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
