Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Allahabad Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar quashed the remand order dated 26.12.2024 and declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal, directing immediate release unless required in another case. The Court held that the arrest and subsequent remand order were vitiated by failure to inform the petitioner in writing of the grounds of arrest, in contravention of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 47 of BNSS). The Bench also directed circulation of compliance instructions to police authorities statewide.

The case arose from an FIR dated 15.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No.77 of 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Milak, District Rampur. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 26.12.2024, who passed a remand order sending the petitioner to judicial custody. The petitioner challenged both the arrest and the remand order in the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Also Read: “Qualifications Must Be Possessed by the Date Appointed in the Rules or the Advertisement”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta High Court Order, Upholds Eligibility of D.El.Ed. Candidates

The petitioner confined his relief to procedural lapses and constitutional violations concerning the arrest and remand, without disputing the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the arrest memo was a printed proforma and did not include any column specifying the grounds or reasons for arrest. It was submitted that neither the reasons nor the grounds for arrest were communicated to the petitioner in writing at the time of arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and statutory provisions under Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS).

Further submissions included that the remand order did not indicate whether the Magistrate had afforded the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or considered judicially the necessity of custodial detention. The petitioner’s legal right to counsel and communication with a nominated person as per Section 50A CrPC (now Section 48 BNSS) was also alleged to have been breached.

Counsel stressed that these deficiencies invalidated the entire remand proceeding, as no satisfaction of legal safeguards appeared to have been exercised. He invoked constitutional provisions—Articles 21, 22(1), and 39A—and relied on statutory provisions such as Section 304 CrPC (now Section 341 BNSS), which mandate legal aid for indigent accused.

In support of his contentions, the petitioner’s counsel cited decisions of the Supreme Court, including:

• Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, where the role and duty of a remand Magistrate to ensure compliance with legal safeguards was elaborated;

• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi);

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, stating the requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest;

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which outlined the mandatory nature of Article 22(1) protections;

• and Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh, where a similar remand order was set aside due to procedural non-compliance with statutory arrest protocols.

The respondents, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and the informant, opposed the petition. The State’s counsel submitted that given the FIR and the petitioner’s alleged involvement, no relief ought to be granted. The informant’s counsel adopted a similar stance, asserting the petition lacked merit.

The Court examined the arrest memo and remand order and recorded:

“Neither the reasons nor grounds for arrest were communicated in writing to the petitioner at the time of arrest, thereby violating the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 50 Cr.P.C.”

It further observed: “Only a printed format memo was provided, without mentioning grounds of arrest.”

Citing from Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Division Bench recorded: “The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1).”

The judgment noted:

“When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist.”

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh, quoting:

“The said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him.”

Relying on these authoritative pronouncements, the Bench found that the procedural irregularities were not merely technical, but substantive violations of fundamental rights and statutory protections:

“No such effort had been made by the learned Magistrate to ensure adequate legal aid to the accused petitioner and appropriate opportunity of hearing at the time judicial remand.”

Thus, the High Court concluded that the petitioner’s arrest and remand were vitiated by non-compliance with constitutional and procedural requirements.

Also Read: “Total Non-Application of Mind”: J&K High Court Quashes Magistrate’s Order for Being Unreasoned, Directs Presiding Officer to Attend Judicial Academy

The Division Bench issued the following final directives: “The impugned order dated 26.12.2024 is hereby set aside. The arrest of the petitioner is also quashed.”

“The petitioner shall be set at liberty, unless required in connection with any other case.”

“Let the order be communicated to Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh through Registrar General of this Court and accordingly, a circular be issued to all the Commissioners of Police/ SSPs/ SPs for necessary compliance of Section 50 and 50A (now Section 47 and 48 BNSS) in the light of the observations made above.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri Anupam Verma, Advocate, Praveen Shrivastav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Paritosh Malviya, Additional Government Advocate-I; Shri Vinod Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:52089-DB
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 934 of 2025
Coram: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Justice Prashant Kumar

[Read/Download order]