The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is fundamental; however, substantial compliance may be sufficient, and procedural defects can be curable without rendering detention illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

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.

2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , has been filed with the prayer that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a suitable Writ, Order, or Direction, including a Writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the judicial remand order dated 18.05.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hapur, in connection with Case Crime No.290 of 2025, under Sections- 318(4), 338, 340(1), 340(2) 111 & 336(3) of BNSS, Police Station- Pilakhuwa, District- Hapur.

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 directing the concerned Respondents to immediately enlarge him on interim bail or release him forthwith, as a necessary corollary to the quashing of the fundamental remand order.

4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the proceedings begins with the lodging of an FIR based on a detailed recovery memo, following the procurement of a search warrant from a competent Magistrate on May 17, 2025. Acting on this warrant, the Police/S.T.F. conducted a major, all-night raid at the premises of Monad University concerning a massive racket involved in the preparation of fake degrees and marksheets. This extensive operation resulted in the recovery of a huge quantity of incriminating articles, including fake marksheets, degrees, provisional certificates, mobile phones, iPads, computers, and other electronic equipment, all indicative of a well-orchestrated criminal enterprise. A detailed recovery memo (Fard Baramadgi) was meticulously prepared on the spot, read over to the accused persons, and, with the consent of all co-accused the copy of recovery memo was provided to one co-accused. All the co-accused signed the recovery memo acknowledging and certifying its contents. The accused are shown to have been arrested on May 18, 2025, at 4:45 AM. Following the arrest, the petitioner and other co-accused were produced before the Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, within the mandatory 24-hour period under Section 57 Cr.P.C ./ Section 58 of BNSS. The Magistrate passed the remand order on May 18, 2025, remanding the accused to judicial custody, which the petitioner now challenges as perverse. Furthermore, in the same case crime number, co-accused Rajesh and Mukesh Thakur were granted interim bail by the High Court in separate Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions (No.15982/2025 and 17333/2025, respectively), setting crucial judicial precedents that the petitioner relies upon seeking parity for grant of interim bail to him.

5. The counsel for the petitioner challenges the legality of the arrest. He asserts that the failure of the arresting authority to formally and explicitly communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the moment of apprehension constitutes a fatal flaw that vitiates the entire process. This failure, he su