BA1/1601/2024 of MEHTAB Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

reiterated the decision passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC, 576. Para 14, 15 & 16 of the said judgment are extracted herein below:

“14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not formality but mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when person is arrested without warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting person or after arresting person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for second.

15. We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1. This Court has suggested that the proper and ideal course of communicating the grounds of arrest is to provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before police officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of arrest have to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if the grounds of arrest are communicated in writing. Although there is no requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 are suggestions that merit consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may 14 not be practicable to implement what is suggested. If the course, as suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non-compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance the rights of person arrested with the interests of the society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply with the requirements of Article 22.

(Alok Mahra, J.)