The term "forthwith" in S.50 CrPC mandates immediate communication of grounds of arrest to ensure legal rights are protected, non-compliance invalidates the arrest.

1. This case concerns an analysis of the precise definition of the word "forthwith" as used in S.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the scope of the legal obligation it imposes on the State to supply the "grounds of arrest" to an arrestee.

2. Byway of the present petition filed under S.482 CrPC, the petitioner impugns order dated 18-5-2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi whereby the learned Magistrate remanded the petitioner to police custody for 2 days in case FIR No. 157 of 2024 dated 17-5-2024 registered under S.342/344/365/368/370/370 - A / 372/373/376/120 - B / 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and S.3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act) at PS Kamla Market, Delhi.

3. Factual background

Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was the "manager" of an establishment which was inter alia engaged in the sexual abuse and exploitation of victims and was living - of the gains of such activity, based on which allegation the subject FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

4. Subsequently, the investigating officer (IO) moved an application seeking the petitioner's custody; and vide order dated 18-5-2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner was remanded to police custody for 2 days. The petitioner was thereafter remanded to judicial custody for 14 days vide order dated 20-5-2024 passed by the learned Magistrate.

5. Pursuant to notice being issued on the present petition on 28-5-2024, the State has filed status report dated 8-6-2024 in the matter.

6. Petitioner's submissions Mr Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has premised his challenge to the impugned order on the following 3 principals grounds:
6.1. firstly, it is contended that admittedly the grounds of arrest were never communicated to the petitioner until after the filing of the remand application by the IO before the learned Magistrate; and that therefore, the petitioner's arrest and remand were both illegal in light of the rulings of coordinate Benches of this Court in Pranav Kuckreja v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Pranav Kuckreja v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del. 9549, Para 28); and Kshitij Ghildiyal v. GST Intelligence Directorate , ( Kshitij Ghildiyal v. GST Intelligence Directorate , 2024 SCC OnLine Del. 8949) ;

6.2. secondly, it is submitted that in any case the petitioner was not produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, and the petitioner must be taken to have been arrested at 11.30 a.m. on 17-5-2024 when he was detained at PS Kamla Market, Delhi by the IO; and

6.3. lastly, it is argued that the grounds of arrest mentioned in the remand application filed by the IO before the learned Magistrate are completely different from the grounds of arrest purportedly served on the petitioner during the course of the remand hearing; and this distinction vitiates the requirement of serving the grounds of arrest on the arrestee.

7. Elaborating on the aforesaid grounds, Mr Pujari has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of a coordinate Bench in Pranav Kuckreja case, (Pranav Kuckreja v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del. 9549, Para 28) to argue that the coordinate Bench has held that the word "forthwith" appearing in S.50 CrPC implies that the grounds of arrest have to be communicated to an arre