The requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in writing is a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, and non-compliance renders the arrest unlawful.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C . seeking to quash the impugned remand order dated 17.02.2023 (Annexure A) passed by Snr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, in Crime No. 35/2023 registered in Arasikere PS, Arasikere Sub-Division, Hassan District, for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC , 1860.

2. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.02.2023 and has preferred the instant petition challenging his arrest on the grounds that no grounds of arrest were communicated to the arrestee-petitioner, prior to the passing of the impugned order of remand.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the arrestee at the time of his arrest constitutes a violation of the fundamental right under Article 22(1) and therefore, shall also amount to violation of the right to Protection of life and personal liberty, under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution . The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’ and submitted that the purported arrest memo dated 17.02.2023 does not contain any ‘possible’ grounds, which has warranted the arrest of the petitioner herein. Therefore, in light of the apparent error of law resulting in contravention of the entrenched fundamental rights of the petitioner, the instant petition is preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of remand and to direct the release of the petitioner forthwith from custody. In support, he places reliance upon the following:

I. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 171

II. Central Bureau of Investigation v. RR Kishore , (2023) 15 SCC 339

III. Manoj Parihar and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , (2022) 14 SCC 72

IV. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , 2024 (7) SCC 5760

V. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2024 (8) SCC 25

VI. Syed Sajjad Ali v. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , W.P. No. 5435/2024 : DD 05.07.2024

VII. Praveen Singh v. State of Karnataka , W.P. No. 1390/2025 : DD 17.02.2025

VIII. Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra , - Constitution Bench, AIR 1962 SC 911

IX. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India and Ors. , 1981 (2) SCC 427

X. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269

XI. Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh , Crl A. No. 1518/2025 in SLP Crl. No. 1662/2025 : DD 25.03.2025

4. Per contra, Shri BN Jagadeesha, the Ld. Addl. Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner admits to having been served with the arrest memo and intimation of arrest, as prescribed under Section 50 and Section 50 -A of Cr.P.C .

4.1. As regards the obligation incumbent upon the arresting officer to the communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee, the Ld. Addl. Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the same is in effect only since the date of pronouncement of judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) i.e., October 3, 2023, as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2024) 7 SCC 599 .

4.2. Therefo