JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the legality of the remand order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun, in relation to FIR No. RC0072023S0006, registered at Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The revisionist has also prayed that his arrest be declared illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and that he be released from judicial custody forthwith.

2. The case of the investigating agency, as reflected from the record, is that the above-mentioned FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, Dehradun, in connection with alleged offences relating to criminal conspiracy and forgery punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During the course of investigation, the revisionist came to be arrested by the investigating agency. After his arrest, the revisionist was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody by order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

4. The revisionist has assailed the legality of the said remand order primarily on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal and unconstitutional. According to the revisionist, at the time of his arrest the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing, which according to him constitutes a violation of the safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to communication of grounds of arrest.

5. It is the case of the revisionist that in the absence of proper communication of the grounds of arrest, the arrest itself becomes illegal and any consequential order of remand passed by the Magistrate would also stand vitiated.

6. On the strength of the above submissions, the revisionist has approached this Court by way of the present criminal revision seeking setting aside of the remand order dated 09.10.2024 and praying that his arrest be declared illegal and unconstitutional, with a further direction for his immediate release from judicial custody.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the arrest of the revisionist is illegal and unconstitutional as the mandatory safeguards contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India were not complied with at the time of arrest.

8. It is submitted that the constitutional mandate requires that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest, and such communication must be meaningful and effective so as to enable the arrested person to understand the basis of the accusation against him and to prepare his defence.

9. Learned counsel submits that in the present case the grounds of arrest were never communicated to the revisionist in writing at the time of arrest, nor was any document containing the grounds of arrest supplied to him. It is argued that mere arrest or production before the Magistrate without proper communication of the grounds of arrest is a direct infringement of the safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

10. It is further submitted that the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing has been authoritatively recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed 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, wherein it has been held that furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing is an important safeguard flowing from Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

11. Learned counsel further submits that