Back
2026 Supreme(All) 486
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
Sandeep Baisoya – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal MISC. Bail Application No. 16120 of 2026
Decided On : 22-05-2026
For the Applicant : Amit Saxena
For the Opposite Party : G.A.
Failure to provide grounds of arrest and a lack of judicial scrutiny during remand, particularly concerning compliance with constitutional safeguards and procedural requirements for discovery, violates fundamental rights, rendering the detention illegal and providing a sufficient basis for granting bail.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 and Article 22(1) - Criminal Procedure - Arrest and Remand - Right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Failure of investigating authority to communicate grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of fundamental rights - Remand order passed without verifying compliance with constitutional safeguards is illegal - Necessity of preparing a formal disclosure memo as per established guidelines before conducting a recovery - Requirement of application of judicial mind by a magistrate while authorizing remand. (Paras 3-7, 9)
(B) Bail - Grant of - Procedural lapses in arrest and discovery of evidence, combined with evidence of parity with co-accused already released, justify the exercise of judicial discretion to grant relief regardless of statutory restrictions. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought judicial relief in a criminal case, contending that the grounds of arrest were not provided at the time of detention or prior to the issuance of a remand order. Furthermore, it was alleged that no formal disclosure memo was prepared as required by law prior to the discovery of incriminating objects. The remand order was challenged as a mechanical production on a pre-printed form, lacking a genuine application of judicial mind.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the investigating agency failed to provide the grounds of arrest, violating a mandatory constitutional requirement. Additionally, the police failed to adhere to the prescribed procedure for preparing a mandatory disclosure memo before the discovery process. The remand order, characterized by a reliance on non-specific printed documentation, showed a lack of judicial scrutiny. Given these procedural failures and the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to release.
Issues: Whether the failure to provide the grounds of arrest and the absence of a proper disclosure memo for recovery vitiate the legality of the arrest and subsequent remand, thereby entitling the accused to bail?
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the constitutional mandate of communicating the grounds of arrest is non-negotiable. Non-compliance vitiates the detention and renders the subsequent remand illegal. Magistrates hold a specific duty to verify that constitutional safeguards are met during the remand stage. Infringement of these foundational rights provides valid grounds for granting bail, overriding typical statutory limitations.
Result: Application allowed; applicant ordered to be released on bail.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application details, parity claims, and contentions of false implication. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. mandatory written communication of arrest grounds and strict compliance with discovery panchnama procedures. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial mandate regarding the accountability of police and the requirement for magistrates to apply judicial mind during remand. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. granting of bail based on established procedural irregularities and judicial parity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M.L. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 16 of 2026, under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Tronica City, District -Ghaziabad.
3. This matter was heard on 12th May, 2026. On that date, the counsel for the applicant apart from claiming parity with the co-accused Divyanshu also raised the issue of non supply of ground of arrest at the time of arrest or thereafter even prior to the remand order passed by the concerned Magistrate. It was also submitted that before proceeding to recover the country-made pistol, no disclosure memo (panchnama) was prepared at the police station as required by the Apex Court in the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka 2023 (11) SCC 255.
4. In pursuance of order dated 12th May, 2026, learned A.G.A. has filed compliance affidavit of Kamal Kant, Sub Inspector, Police Station- Tronica City, District-Ghaziabad wherein he has not denied the fact that the ground of arrest was not supplied to the applicant at any stage till the remand order was passed by the learned Magistrate. This affidavit is also silent on the issue regarding preparation of disclosure memo at the police station before proceeding for recovery, as required by the Apex Court in the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and no reason was mentioned why the ground of arrest was not supplied and why the disclosure memo has not been prepared despite the direction of the Apex Court. In the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court by considering the scope of Section 27 of Evidence Act observed that before proceeding for recovery, Panchnama (disclosure memo) must be prepared duly signed by the accused at the police station. In the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) in paragraph No.78 held as under:
"78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the appellant-accused while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes, etc. then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence, etc. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first
