The Supreme Court has set aside the arrest and subsequent remand of an accused, ruling that the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing constitutes a violation of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that merely providing an arrest memo without substantive particulars does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under CrPC, thereby rendering the arrest and remand unlawful.
The appellant, Ashish Kakkar, was arrested on December 30, 2024, in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was remanded to police custody for three days. Challenging the legality of his arrest, he approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which declined to interfere. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court contesting his arrest and remand on three grounds:
- Non-compliance with Section 41A of CrPC – Lack of proper notice prior to arrest.
- Denial of opportunity to be heard during remand proceedings.
- Failure to furnish grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 50 of CrPC.
While adjudicating the matter, the Supreme Court focused primarily on the last issue concerning the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest.
Upon examining the case record, the Court found that the document provided to the appellant was merely an arrest memo, which only contained his name, place of arrest, and a vague reference to the statement of a co-accused. The Bench observed that such a memo does not satisfy the statutory mandate of Section 50 of CrPC, which ensures compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him," the Court stated.
The judgment relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), wherein it was held that providing written grounds of arrest is a statutory obligation, and failure to comply renders the arrest legally untenable.
Given the clear violation of the procedural safeguards enshrined in CrPC and the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s arrest and subsequent remand were unlawful. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and ordered his immediate release unless he was required in any other case.
"This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment," the Court declared.
Picture Source :