Read Time: 10 minutes
“The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail”, the court highlighted.
The Delhi High Court, on Monday, noted that there is an urgent need to update the arrest memos so as to add the grounds of arrest in the memo. The court noted that a revised arrest memo form, along with additional annexures, was required to ensure effective compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the corresponding Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. The Commissioner of Delhi Police was directed to take appropriate measures for implementing the said modifications.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held, “There is an urgent need to update the Arrest Memo Forms being used… a revised arrest memo form or some annexures are to be added to ensure effective compliance with Section 50 Cr.P.C. and the corresponding Section 47 of BNSS, 2023. The Commissioner of Delhi Police may ensure that necessary actions are taken for the said modification”.
A petition was filed challenging the legality of his arrest. Advocate Manu Sharma, representing the petitioner, contended that the arrest was unlawful as the grounds were not communicated at the time, violating Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1).
The FIR was based on allegations by the complainant, who claimed to have been in a relationship with the petitioner since 2019, during which she faced abuse, coercion, and sexual assault. Advocate Sharm argued that the arrest memo lacked grounds, making the arrest arbitrary.
Additional Standing Counsel Rahul Tyagi, representing the State, countered that the grounds for arrest were detailed in the remand application filed on November 5, 2024, provided to the petitioner and accepted by the Magistrate. It justified the delay in arrest due to the petitioner’s non-cooperation in the investigation.
The court noted that “the law mandates the police officer to inform the arrested individual of the full particulars of the offence or the grounds for arrest”. This obligation was not a mere formality but a fundamental safeguard to protect the individual's constitutional right to liberty. Courts had repeatedly criticized the practice of filling out generic reasons in proforma documents to justify arrests. Under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the term "forthwith" indicated that the grounds for arrest must be communicated immediately at the time of arrest to ensure that the individual was promptly informed of the reasons for detention, thereby safeguarding their legal rights.
The court observed that numerous instances had been reported where arrested persons alleged serious procedural violations under the Cr.P.C., necessitating careful judicial scrutiny. “It is relevant to note that the constitutional safeguards are incorporated in the procedural law as procedural safeguards and the Court have to be very careful and must keep in mind the constitutional frame work”, the court outlined.
The court emphasized that arrests should only be made when absolutely necessary, underscoring the paramount importance of personal liberty and condemning arbitrary and mechanical arrests.
The court reiterated that police must not arrest individuals merely because it is legally permissible. Arrests had to be justified, and the grounds for arrest were required to be communicated immediately. The court reaffirmed the necessity of promptly providing written grounds for arrest, strongly criticizing the use of vague justifications in arrest memos.
The absence of specific grounds for arrest was deemed a violation of statutory and constitutional rights under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Every individual had a fundamental and statutory right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest in writing, with a copy furnished without delay.
The court emphasized that the objective of informing the arrested individual about the grounds of their arrest was both significant and inviolable, as this information served as the sole effective means for the individual to consult their advocate, contest the request for police custody remand, and apply for bail.
In this case, the court noted that the arrest memo failed to communicate the grounds for the petitioner’s arrest. Although the prosecution argued that these grounds were included in the remand application dated November 5, 2024, the Court found that the application did not specify the grounds at the time of arrest, constituting a direct violation of Section 50 Cr.P.C.
The court determined that the petitioner’s arrest was illegal and ordered their immediate release, provided they were not required in any other case, upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of an equivalent amount.
Finally, the Court highlighted the need to revise arrest memo forms to include provisions for recording grounds of arrest. It directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to ensure the necessary modifications to facilitate compliance with Section 50 Cr.P.C. A copy of the order was sent to the Commissioner for information and implementation.
For Petitioner: Advocates Manu Sharma, Abhir Datt, Debayan Gangopadhyay, Anant Gupta, Kartik Khanna and Suryaketu TomarFor Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Rahul Tyagi with Advocates Sangeet Sibou, Jatin, Anikait SinghCase Title: Pranav Kuckreja v State (W.P.(CRL) 3476/2024)
Please Login or Register
