Communication of grounds of arrest must be meaningful, ensuring awareness of factual basis for effective legal representation; strict adherence to formalism is not required if substance is achieved.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the Revisionist challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the Revisionist was remanded to judicial custody.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Revisionist was arrested in connection with an offence registered under the relevant penal provisions. The arrest was effected without warrant and the Revisionist was produced before the learned Magistrate for remand.

3. At the time of production before the Magistrate, an objection was raised on behalf of the Revisionist that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India had not been complied with inasmuch as the “grounds of arrest” had not been communicated to him in writing.

4. It was contended before the learned Magistrate that mere oral intimation of the allegations would not amount to compliance of Article 22(1), as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 .

5. The Investigating Officer, however, stated before the learned Magistrate that the Revisionist had been informed of the allegations forming the basis of his arrest and that the arrest memo contained the relevant particulars. It was further submitted that the requirement of law stood satisfied.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the remand order and committed the Revisionist to judicial custody. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision has been filed, essentially on the ground that non-communication of the grounds of arrest in writing vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand proceedings.

7. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist submits that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that a person arrested shall not be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.

8. It is contended that the expression “grounds of arrest” has been judicially interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to mean not merely the formal “reasons of arrest”, but the basic factual allegations constituting the offence and the basis on which the arresting officer formed his belief.

9. Learned Counsel places reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 to contend that communication of the grounds of arrest must be in writing and a copy thereof must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.

10. It is argued that the purpose of such written communication is not merely procedural but substantive, as it enables the arrested person to meaningfully consult legal counsel, oppose remand and seek bail.

11. Learned Counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest” and that recording generic reasons in the arrest memo would not satisfy the constitutional mandate unless the specific factual allegations necessitating arrest are clearly conveyed.

12. It is urged that in the present case, the Investigating Officer himself admitted that no separate written grounds of arrest were furnished to the Revisionist. According to the Revisionist, this amounts to a clear violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1)