Allahabad High Court
Sunny Dayal Varshney vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 29 July, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124785-DB
Reserved On:-08.07.2025
Delivered On:-29.07.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13446 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sunny Dayal Varshney
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anwar Hussain
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pushpendra Kumar,Ramdhan
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.
1. Heard Shri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ramdhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4,Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. 1st and perused the record.
2. The above noted writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:-
"i. to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 16.05.2025 lodged by respondent no.5 giving rise to Case Crime No.213 of 2025 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 109 (1) and 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, so far as petitioner is concerned.
ii. to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the arrest memo dated 16.06.2025 and remand order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh.
iii. to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus declaring arrest of the petitioner pursuant to impugned first information report dated 16.05.2025 lodged by respondent no.5 giving rise to Case Crime No.213 of 2025 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 109 (1) and 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh as illegal and further directed that he shall be released forthwith.
iv. to issue any other writ or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not informed about the ground of his arrest as clear from the arrest memo dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). He has pointed out that the ground of arrest mentioned in the memo of arrest is that petitioner is wanted in the aforesaid case. He has submitted that the arrest memo is not in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 799. In paragraphs 25 and 26 of the above judgment, it has been held that the non-compliance of requirements of Article 22 (1) of Constitution of India by not informing the ground of arrest to the accused is not permissible under law. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12507/2024 Anwar Dhebhar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others decided on 30.05.2025. wherein in paragraph 15, the grounds of arrest have been detailed, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court can issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose]. However, there is no prohibition for the High Court to issue such orders which were required in a particular case in the interest of justice as has been held by the judgment of Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation (Supra). Definitely, the arrest took place on 18.06.2024 and the memo of arrest was served upon the petitioner and an information was sent to the son of the petitioner. There was in fact no resistance from the side of the petitioner and his family. Thereafter, there were various remand orders dated 21.06.2024 and 01.07.2024. From the memos of arrest, the information given to the son of the petitioner and the remand orders, we do not find that the grounds of the arrest were communicated to the petitioner. In fact the arrest memo does not contain any column for giving the reason of arrest. Also, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner for defending his custodial remand. Thus, with some certainty it can be said that the petitioner was never furnished the grounds of arrest as is mandated under Section 50 Cr.P.C. (now the Section 47 of the B.N.S.S.). Here though the nature of the instant case does not demand that we give the grounds which necessarily ought to be there at the time of arrest and which should have been provided to the accused which was being arrested, we consider it appropriate to enumerate a few of the grounds.
i. Even though the offences are already enumerated in the first information report, the fact that the police had an apprehension that the accused was a dreaded criminal and therefore he had to be arrested had to be given out as a ground.
ii. Further the police apprehended that the accused might tamper with the evidence and pressurize witnesses has also to be given out as a ground of arrest.
iii. Still further we are of the view that a ground of arrest could also be that the person sought to be arrested was a habitual criminal and outside the jail he would be a threat to the society.
iv. The police should also give as a ground of arrest all the investigation which had preceded the arrest which had led the police to determine that the accused was a dreaded criminal and was a threat to the witnesses of the case.
v. The grounds would also contain the evidence with regard to the complicity of the accused to the crime.
vi. The grounds ought to also contain the actual offence committed by the accused.
vii. The grounds should also specify as to whether the police expected disturbance of public order.
viii. Even if there was an apprehension of disturbance of public order then that could also form a ground.
The above grounds however not exhaustive. "
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by State the same arrest memo as annexed in the writ petition has been brought on record and the arrest and remand of the petitioner has been shown on the aforesaid ground.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition but could not point out any law to the contrary.
6. In view of the above, the arrest memo dated 16.06.2025 is hereby quashed being in violation of section 48 B.N.S.S. (section 50-A Cr.P.C.) and Articles 21, 39 A and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It shall always be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :-29.07.2025
Abhishek
(Avnish Saxena,J.) ( Siddharth,J.)
