Rampal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2207 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Rampal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 28 February, 2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
             Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2025
                       28 February, 2025



Rampal Singh                                        -Revisionist

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another                    -Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder for the State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

The criminal revision is preferred against the

impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned

Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/IV Additional Sessions

Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2025 (SST No.

27 of 2024), State Vs. Rampal in Case Crime No. 06 of

2020, under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C. Act") and Section

13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, Police Station Vigilance Sector Dehradun, District

Dehradun, by which, the learned Court has refused to

release the applicant on an application moved by him.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the arrest and further remand of the

revisionist is bad in the eyes of law because the grounds

of arrest have never been communicated to them in

writing, as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others,

(2024) 7 SCC, 576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of

Haryana and Another, (2025) SCC Online SC 269.

Therefore, it is argued that the remand order may be set

aside and revisionist may be released forthwith.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that

the principle of law that has been laid down in the case

of Pankaj Bansal (supra) was pertaining to the provisions

of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 ("the

PMLA Act") and in the case of Prabir Purkayastha

(supra), the principles are laid down under the

provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,

1967 ("the UAPA Act"). It is argued that those principles

cannot be made applicable to the offences under P.C.

Act. He would submit that Section 47 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("the BNSS, 2023") is a

provision that will be applicable in the instant case.

5. In the instant case, the revisionist was

arrested and produced before the Magistrate on

27.09.2024. At the time of remand, an argument was

raised on behalf of the revisionist that since he was not

communicated the grounds of his arrest in writing, the

remand should be refused. The Investigating Officer

admitted that the reasons of arrest were not

communicated to the revisionist in writing instead it was

orally informed to him. After hearing the parties, the

Magistrate proceeded to remand the revisionist in

judicial custody. Bail application was moved which was

rejected and after investigation in the matter, charge-

sheet has been filed.

6. It is true that in the case of Pankaj Bansal

(supra), the offence was punishable under the provisions

of the PMLA Act and it is also true that in the case of

Prabir Purkayastha (supra) the provisions of the UAPA

Act were interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. It may be made clear that reasons of arrest

and grounds of arrest are two different contexts. In the

case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has elaborated on that aspect in para 48 as

follows:-

"48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest". The "reasons for arrest" as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the "grounds of arrest"

would be required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the "grounds of arrest" would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the "reasons of arrest" which are general in nature."

8. Generally, there are many safeguards to

protect personal liberty of an individual prior to arrest,

at the time of arrest or after arrest. One of such

safeguards is that the grounds of arrest should be

communicated to an arrestee soon after his arrest.

Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 reads as follows:-

"47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.--(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf."

(emphasis supplied)

9. It would be appropriate to make reference

to the provisions of the PMLA Act and the UAPA Act on

this aspect. Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act makes

provision with regard to communication of the grounds

of arrest. It reads as follows:-

"19. Power to arrest.--(1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest."

(emphasis supplied)

10. Similarly, Section 43-B of the UAPA Act

also makes provision in that regard. It reads as under:-

"43-B. Procedure of arrest, seizure, etc.--(1) Any officer arresting a person under Section 43-A

shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.

(2) Every person arrested and article seized under Section 43-A shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station.

(3) The authority or officer to whom any person or article is forwarded under sub-section (2) shall, with all convenient dispatch, take such measures as may be necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Code."

(emphasis supplied)

11. A bare perusal of Section 43 of the BNSS,

2023, Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act and Section 43-B of

the UAPA Act make it abundantly clear that these

provisions speak of communication of grounds of such

arrest. These provisions do not mandate that these

grounds should be communicated in writing.

12. There is another Constitutional provision

which is applicable in such matters. Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India makes a safeguard in this respect,

which reads as follows:-

"22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.--(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice."

(emphasis supplied)

13. The provisions of Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India has been interpreted, in the case of

Pankaj Bansal (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed as follows:-

"38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis for the officer's "reason to believe" that he/she is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail.

Therefore, communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.

43. The second reason as to why this would be the proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying such information being given to the arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] are placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were produced at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading of the

grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) PMLA.

45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception........................................................... ........................................................................."

(emphasis supplied)

14. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra),

the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Pankaj

Bansal has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and in para 19 the Hon'ble Court observed as follows:-

"19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. 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. Any other interpretation would

tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India."

(emphasis supplied)

15. The first sentence of para 19 has been read

over and interpreted by the learned State counsel to

argue that the principle of law, as laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir

Purkayastha (supra) relates to the offences under the

UAPA Act and the PMLA Act only.

16. This interpretation as given by the learned

State counsel is not in consonance with what is held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir

Purkayastha (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that

case has interpreted the concept of right to life and

liberty and in para 20, 21 and 26 observed as follows:-

"20. The right to life and personal liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to the following observations made by this Court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 42] : (SCC p. 593, para 7) "7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law.

It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens."

Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with strictly.

21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.

26. From a holistic reading of various judgments pertaining to the law of preventive detention including the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Harikisan [Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117] , wherein, the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been interpreted, we find that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the grounds on which the liberty of a citizen is curtailed, must be communicated in writing so as to enable him to seek remedial measures against the deprivation of liberty."

17. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court read

the provisions of Article 22(1) and 22(5) of the

Constitution of India regarding the communication of

grounds of arrest and held that these grounds are

identical. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further

observed as follows:-

"28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the "grounds" of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.

45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar

Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) SCC Online SC

269, have reiterated the decision passed in the case of

Pankaj Bansal (supra). Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of

the said judgment are extracted hereinunder:-

"14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of

the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a 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 a 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 a person is arrested without a

warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as

soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation

of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well.

In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed

while arresting a person or after arresting a 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 a 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 a 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

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 a person arrested with the interests of the

society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously

comply with the requirements of Article 22.

16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel

appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the

appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a

chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the

custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking

cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such

arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel,

will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of

the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional

due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated.

Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on

orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and

order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per

se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of

the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most

important safeguards provided under Article 22."

19. What is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in para 45 in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) is

the law of land. Reading the statutory provisions in

context of the Constitutional Scheme as envisaged under

the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India makes it

abundantly clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

laid down the law that the grounds of arrest have to be

conveyed to the accused in writing. It cannot be said

that this law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court is applicable only to the cases pertaining to the

UAPA Act and the PMLA Act. As stated, it is applicable to

every offence in view of the Constitutional Scheme. In

the instant case, admittedly, the grounds of arrests have

not been communicated to the revisionist in writing.

Learned State Counsel further argued that the custody

of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking

cognizance passed on the charge-sheet.

20. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to

the learned State Counsel, will amount to completely

nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once

it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation

of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore,

continued custody of such a person based on orders of

remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order

of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per

se unconstitutional, being violative of

Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We

cannot tinker with the most important safeguards

provided under Article 22."

21. Therefore, the arrests and subsequent remands

are not in accordance with law. The impugned remand

orders are, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

Accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

22. Accordingly, the criminal revision is

allowed.

23. The arrest and remand of the revisionist

are invalid. As a consequence, the order dated

09.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-

Corruption/IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in

Misc. Case No. 17 of 2025 (SST No. 27 of 2024), State

Vs. Rampal in Case Crime No. 06 of 2020 is set-aside

and the revisionist be released on bail.

24. Accordingly, without expressing any

opinion on the merit of the case, the revisionist be

released on bail, on furnishing his personal bond and

two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 28.02.2025 Ujjwal