JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

The criminal revision is preferred against the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2025 (SST No. 27 of 2024), State Vs. Rampal in Case Crime No. 06 of 2020, under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C. Act”) and Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Sector Dehradun, District Dehradun, by which, the learned Court has refused to release the applicant on an application moved by him.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the arrest and further remand of the revisionist is bad in the eyes of law because the grounds of arrest have never been communicated to them in writing, as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC, 576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) SCC Online SC 269. Therefore, it is argued that the remand order may be set aside and revisionist may be released forthwith.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that the principle of law that has been laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) was pertaining to the provisions of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“the PMLA Act”) and in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the principles are laid down under the provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“the UAPA Act”). It is argued that those principles cannot be made applicable to the offences under P.C. Act. He would submit that Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“the BNSS, 2023”) is a provision that will be applicable in the instant case.

5. In the instant case, the revisionist was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 27.09.2024. At the time of remand, an argument was raised on behalf of the revisionist that since he was not communicated the grounds of his arrest in writing, the remand should be refused. The Investigating Officer admitted that the reasons of arrest were not communicated to the revisionist in writing instead it was orally informed to him. After hearing the parties, the Magistrate proceeded to remand the revisionist in judicial custody. Bail application was moved which was rejected and after investigation in the matter, charge-sheet has been filed.

6. It is true that in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), the offence was punishable under the provisions of the PMLA Act and it is also true that in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) the provisions of the UAPA Act were interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. It may be made clear that reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest are two different contexts. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborated on that aspect in para 48 as follows:-

“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 acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the “grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of ar