Remand is valid if the investigating agency complies with the constitutional mandates of Article 22 and statutory requirements of the Cr.P.C. regarding informing the accused of grounds for arrest and notifying nominated relatives.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order of remand passed as against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri in R.R.No.23 of 2023, dated 27.07.2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 in R.R.No.23 of 2023 under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 on the file of the respondent, alleging that the petitioners were in possession and transported Ganja weighing about 432.700 kgs and intercepted a vehicle which was driven by the first accused bearing Registration No.TN 31 BD 6347 at Karanodai Toll Plaza, Chennai on 24/25.07.2023. However, they were remanded to judicial custody on 27.07.2023. In the meanwhile, they were kept in the illegal custody and they were tortured by physically and mentally for almost three days.

4. After a period of three days, they were produced for remand on 27.07.2023. Immediately, after their arrest, they were not produced before the nearest Magistrate. That apart, their arrest were not intimated to any of the petitioners' friends, relatives or family members. The respondent violated the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 167 Cr.P.C. Further, the respondent failed to produce the petitioners within 24 hours from the time of arrest/detention as contemplated under Section 57 of Cr.P.C or not transmitted to the nearest Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, it is a clear violation of Article 22 of Constitution of India.

5. In support of contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.)No.13320 of 2024, in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and another dated 07.02.2025, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that as per clause 1 of Article 22 of Constitution of India that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Further as per Section 50 of Cr.P.C, a person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.

6. Article 22(5) of Constitution of India is regarding communication of the grounds of arrest or detention in writing to the relatives, family members or friends of the accused. Therefore, Article 22(1) and 22(5) of Constitution of India cannot be breached under any situation. Non compliance of the constitutional requirements and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.

7. It was further held that the purpose of inserting Section 50A of Cr.P.C, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, communicating the grounds of detenue and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives