Uttarakhand High Court

Mohd. Tanveer vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 September, 2025

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
         Criminal Misc. Application No. 1198 of 2025
                         02nd September, 2025

Mohd. Tanveer                                               -Applicant

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                        -Respondent

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

Presence:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by

the applicant for setting-aside and declaring invalid the

impugned remand order dated 09.03.2025 and the subsequent

remand orders passed by the Remand Magistrate, Roorkee,

District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 365 of 2025, State of

Uttarakhand Vs. Mohtaseen and Another (arising out of

FIR/Case Crime No. 620 of 2023 lodged on 26.07.2023 under

Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Police Station -

Manglour), pending in the court of 1st Judicial Magistrate,

Roorkee, District Haridwar and also for immediate release of

the applicant from judicial custody declaring the arrest of the

applicant to be illegal in Criminal Case No. 365 of 2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that the arrest and further remand of the applicant is bad in

the eyes of law because the grounds of arrest have never been

communicated to him 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.

Learned counsel further submits that the concerned

Magistrate did not apply his mind before passing the

impugned remand order; it is a cyclostyled order and has been

passed in a cursory and mechanical manner using a printed

format without indicating any application of judicial mind or

reference to material evidence. Therefore, it is argued that the

remand order may be set-aside and applicant may be released

forthwith.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that the

present applicant was arrested on 09.03.2025 on the basis of

the cogent and credible material of evidence available on

record against him as per the rules. He further submits that

during the course of investigation, the name of the present

applicant and one another co-accused came into light on the

basis of the statement of Jubair Alam under Section 161

Cr.P.C. in which he fully supported the contents of FIR and

categorically stated that Alfa Communication/Limra

Communication is his own shop.

5. 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."