Sl.No.388

02.05.2025 Ct. no. 35 W.P.A.29660 of 2024 Sampa Mohanto @ Sampa Hyde Gomes Versus The State of West Bengal & Others.

Mr. Deepak Prahladka Ms. Reshmi Khatun. …. For the petitioner.

Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld.A.G.

Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mrs.Sumita Shaw Mr. Saumalya Ganguli.

…. For the State.

The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for a declaration that the arrest of the petitioner on 22.11.2024 in connection with Patuli P.S.Case No.438 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024 was illegal as the same was in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023.

The records of the case reflect that on 22.11.2024, police personnel of Anti Human Trafficking Unit (A.H.T.U.), Detective Department, Kolkata Police, along with others went to the rented flat of the petitioner at P-3, Southern Garden, Kolkata-700084. The petitioner was arrested on the allegation of rescuing two victim women, one of them was an adult while the other was a minor. Two rescue memos and one arrest memo was prepared between 15:15 hrs and 18:45 hrs of 20.11.2024. As a result of the same, Patuli P.S.Case No.438 of 2024 was registered for investigation under Sections 61,64,96,143 and 144 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and Section 4/17 of the POCSO Act along with Sections 3,4,5,6,7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The petitioner was produced before the Learned ACJM, Alipore, 24 Parganas, South, on 23.11.2024. When she was sent to police custody with the direction for her production before the Learned Judge, Special Court (POCSO), Alipore, till 25.11.2024 and the case was registered as Special (A POCSO) case No.451 of 2024.

On 25.11.2024, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody till 27.11.2024 and subsequently in course of such custody the investigating authority further preferred for police custody till 02.12.2024 when such prayer was allowed. However, on 04.12.2024 she was sent to judicial custody till 18.12.2024.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was arrested on 22.12.2024 without being informed of the grounds of the arrest in writing, the petitioner as such submits that there has been a clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as the provision of Section 47 of the B.N.S.S.,2023 and she as such may be released from custody.

In order to substantiate such contention Learned Advocate relied upon a series of judgments.

Reliance was made by the Learned Advocate on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and the reference was drawn to paragraphs 44,45,46, 47, 48 and 49.

“45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article

141 of the Constitution of India.

46. Now, coming to the aspect as to whether the grounds of arrest were actually conveyed to the appellant in writing before he was remanded to the custody of the investigating officer.

47. We have carefully perused the arrest memo (Annexure P-

7) and find that the same nowhere conveys the grounds on which the accused was being arrested. The arrest memo is simply a pro forma indicating the formal “reasons” for which the accused was being arrested.

48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest” as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person ac