Uttarakhand High Court

Parvej vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 25 September, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Criminal Revision No.142 of 2025


Parvej                                                   .........Revisionist

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another                       .........Respondents



Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr.
Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

                   Judgment Reserved on 07.08.2025
                   Judgment deliverved on 25.09.2025


Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.(Oral)

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the order dated 21.01.2025/25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional C.J.M., Roorkee, Haridwar whereby in relation to FIR No.0025 of 2025, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, under Sections 316(3), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, the revisionist was remanded to custody.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings is that the complainant/respondent no. 2 alleged that the revisionist, who was employed with Axis Bank, by taking undue advantage of the complainant and his brother's illiteracy, hatched a conspiracy. The accounts of the complainant/respondent no.2 linked with his own mobile number, and thereafter transferred a sum of Rs.54,000,00/-from their accounts to his own accounts and those of his relatives on different dates.

3. On the basis of those allegations, an FIR dated 20.01.2025 was registered as Case Crime No.0025 of 2025 at P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, Haridwar under Sections

316(5), 318(4), 316(6) & 61(2) of BNSS, 2023. The revisionist was arrested on 21.01.2025 and taken into custody.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned remand order primarily on the ground that the mandatory requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest was not complied with. He also submits that no written grounds of arrest were served upon the revisionist and neither he nor his family members were informed of the same.

5. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC 576, wherein it was held that the communication of grounds of arrest must be in writing to enable the accused to effectively exercise his right to bail and defend himself. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, has also been interpreted in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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."

6. The learned counsel also placed reliance in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, where the court reiterated that failure to communicate written grounds of arrest reduces the arrest illegal and vitiates subsequent proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has interpreted the concept of right to life and liberty in paras 20, 21, and

26.

"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."

7. The learned counsel for the revisionist further strengthened his submissions by placing reliance in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, (2025) 5 SCC 799, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has reiterated the decision passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) paras 14, 15, 16 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:-

"14. In the said decision, this Court in paras 42 and 43 observed [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] thus : (Pankaj Bansal case [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] , SCC p. 597) "42. That being so, there is no valid reason as to why a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle. Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorised officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though ED claims that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] . Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorised officer.

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."

15. The view taken in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] was reiterated by this Court in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] . In paras 28 and 29, this Court held thus : (Prabir Purkayastha case [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] , SCC p. 278) "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.

29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be."

16. This Court held that the language used in Articles 22(1) and 22(5) regarding communication of the grounds is identical, and therefore, this Court held that interpretation of Article 22(5) made by the Constitution Bench in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117] , shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the ground of arrest is concerned. We may also note here that in para 21, in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] , this Court also dealt with the effect of violation of Article 22(1) by holding that any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Para 21 reads thus : (Prabir Purkayastha case [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] , SCC p.

276) "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."

8. The learned counsel for the revisionist on the basis of the above mentioned precedents has contended that the arrest of the revisionist stands vitiated and consequently the order of remand deserves to be quashed.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State Submits that the present case stands on the different footing. It is pointed out that at the time of arrest on 21.01.2025, the Investigating Officer duly prepared an arrest memo which specifically contended the grounds of arrest, and the revisionist signatures were obtained thereon in acknowledgement. Thus, the mandate of the law stood complied with.

10. It is further submitted that the investigation was conducted in a fair and proper manner. He submits that the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of BNSS and thereafter, the learned Magistrate has upon due consideration of materials, rightly remanded the applicant to judicial custody.

11. The learned counsel for the State also submits that the reliance placed by the revisionist on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is misconceived and the revision deserves to be dismissed.

12. Having heard the arguments from both the counsels and the perusal of material on record, the question which arises for determination is whether the arrest of the revisionist was illegal for want of communication of the grounds of arrest, thereby vitiating the subsequent proceedings. There can be no dispute to the proposition of law laid down in Pankaj Bansal (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the

communication of grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1). The same principle was reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra). These decisions underscore the requirement that the accused must be apprised of the grounds of arrest in writing in order to effectively avail his legal remedies.

13. However, the facts of the present case reveal that the situation is materially distinguishable. The counter affidavit filed by the State, as also the arrest memo placed on record, clearly demonstrates that the revisionist was duly informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest on 21.01.2025. His signatures were taken in acknowledgement thereof. Therefore, the contention of the revisionist that as found by the availability of official record stands negated. Once it stands established that the mandate of law was complied with, the reliance on the above judgments does not help the case of the revisionist.

14. In view of the forgoing discussions, this Court finds that arrest and remands of the revisionist were carried out in compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) and statutory requirements under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023. Moreover, it is stated that the investigation has culminated in filing of a charge-sheet after recording the statements of witnesses under Section 180 of the BNSS. The learned Magistrate upon application of mind has remanded the applicant in the case in hand. It must also be borne in mind that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS can be exercised, if, the order under challenge

suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, there is no such illegality in the remand orders.

15. In view of the foregoing discussions this Court is of the opinion that the grounds argued by the revisionist do not merit acceptance. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable on facts and the principles laid down therein do not apply to the present case where the safeguards mandated by law have been duly observed.

16. Accordingly, the present criminal revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

__________________ Pankaj Purohit, J.

Dt: 25.09.2025 Ravi