[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1843
Judgment Reserved on: 29.12.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 17.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.708 of 2025
Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned
Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the Complainant.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the
Revisionist challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the Revisionist was remanded
to judicial custody.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Revisionist was
arrested in connection with an offence registered under the relevant penal
provisions. The arrest was effected without warrant and the Revisionist
was produced before the learned Magistrate for remand.
3. At the time of production before the Magistrate, an objection was
raised on behalf of the Revisionist that the constitutional mandate under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India had not been complied with
inasmuch as the "grounds of arrest" had not been communicated to him in
writing.
1
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1843
4. It was contended before the learned Magistrate that mere oral
intimation of the allegations would not amount to compliance of Article
22(1), as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v.
Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254.
5. The Investigating Officer, however, stated before the learned
Magistrate that the Revisionist had been informed of the allegations
forming the basis of his arrest and that the arrest memo contained the
relevant particulars. It was further submitted that the requirement of law
stood satisfied.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate proceeded to
pass the remand order and committed the Revisionist to judicial custody.
Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision has been filed,
essentially on the ground that non-communication of the grounds of arrest
in writing vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand proceedings.
7. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist submits that Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India mandates that a person arrested shall not be
detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest.
8. It is contended that the expression "grounds of arrest" has been
judicially interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to mean not merely
the formal "reasons of arrest", but the basic factual allegations constituting
the offence and the basis on which the arresting officer formed his belief.
9. Learned Counsel places reliance upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC
576 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 to
contend that communication of the grounds of arrest must be in writing
2
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1843
and a copy thereof must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of
course and without exception.
10. It is argued that the purpose of such written communication is not
merely procedural but substantive, as it enables the arrested person to
meaningfully consult legal counsel, oppose remand and seek bail.
11. Learned Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has drawn a clear distinction between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of
arrest" and that recording generic reasons in the arrest memo would not
satisfy the constitutional mandate unless the specific factual allegations
necessitating arrest are clearly conveyed.
12. It is urged that in the present case, the Investigating Officer
himself admitted that no separate written grounds of arrest were furnished
to the Revisionist. According to the Revisionist, this amounts to a clear
violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) read
with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. It is further contended that once there is a constitutional
infraction at the stage of arrest, the remand order founded upon such arrest
stands vitiated. Learned Counsel submits that the filing of charge-sheet or
continuation of investigation cannot cure the initial illegality.
14. On these submissions, it is prayed that the impugned remand
order be set aside and the Revisionist be directed to be released forthwith.
15. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Revisionist
was informed of the allegations forming the basis of his arrest and that the
arrest memo contained sufficient particulars to apprise him of the offence
for which he was being arrested.
16. It is argued that Article 22(1) requires communication of the
grounds of arrest, but the Constitution itself does not expressly mandate
3
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1843
that such communication must invariably be by way of a separately
prepared written document.
17. Learned State Counsel submits that subsequent decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in Vihaan Kumar v. State of
Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799 and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, have clarified that the mode
and method of communication must be meaningful and sufficient to
impart knowledge of the basic facts constituting the offence.
18. It is further contended that if the arrest memo itself contains the
factual allegation and is supplied to the accused, the requirement of
communication in writing stands satisfied. The law does not require that
the grounds must be recorded on a separate sheet styled as "grounds of
arrest".
19. Learned State Counsel also submits that the arrest in the present
case was effected prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Mihir
Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356,
wherein a clearer mandate regarding written communication was laid
down. Therefore, the legal position prevailing at the relevant time would
govern the case.
20. It is argued that the Revisionist was produced before the
Magistrate, was represented by counsel, and was aware of the allegations
against him. No demonstrable prejudice has been shown to have been
caused on account of the alleged procedural lapse.
21. It is thus contended that the impugned remand order does not
suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
22. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and
has perused the record.
4
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1843
23. The controversy in the present revision is narrow but
constitutionally significant. The sole question that arises for consideration
is whether, in the facts of the present case, there has been non-compliance
with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and if so,
whether such alleged non-compliance vitiates the arrest and the
consequential order of remand.
24. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides 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. The object of this
constitutional safeguard is twofold: first, to ensure that the arrested person
is made aware of the factual basis of the deprivation of his liberty; and
second, to enable him to effectively consult legal counsel, oppose remand
and seek appropriate remedies including bail.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India,
(2024) 7 SCC 576, emphasised that communication of grounds of arrest
must be meaningful and not illusory. This principle was reiterated in
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, where it
was observed that the grounds of arrest must convey the basic facts
constituting the offence so as to enable the arrested person to defend
himself against custodial remand.
26. Subsequently, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5
SCC 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the requirement under
Article 22(1) is mandatory, but the mode and method of communication
must be such that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the
grounds of arrest is effectively imparted. The emphasis was placed on
meaningful communication rather than on rigid formalism.
27. The jurisprudence on the point attained greater clarity in Mihir
Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356,
5
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1843
wherein it was held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he or she understands. However, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also acknowledged that prior to that
pronouncement, there existed inconsistency in the application of the
requirement relating to written communication.
28. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the arrest was effected
prior to the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). Therefore, the legal
position prevailing at the time of arrest must guide the adjudication of the
present revision.
29. The record indicates that the arrest memo contained a recital of
the factual allegation forming the basis of arrest. Though styled as
"reasons for arrest", the substance of the recital discloses the allegation
constituting the offence and the basis for the arresting officer's belief. The
arrest memo was supplied to the Revisionist at the time of arrest.
30. The distinction between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of
arrest" has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir
Purkayastha (supra). While "reasons for arrest" may be general in nature,
"grounds of arrest" must contain the basic facts constituting the offence
and must be personal to the accused. The test, therefore, is whether the
accused was informed of the basic factual allegations necessitating his
arrest.
31. Upon perusal of the arrest memo and the surrounding
circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the Revisionist was made aware
of the specific allegation forming the basis of his arrest. The factual
foundation of the accusation was not withheld. The communication was
contemporaneous with the arrest and was reflected in the arrest memo
supplied to him.
6
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1843
32. The law does not mandate that the grounds of arrest must be
recorded on a separate sheet bearing the caption "grounds of arrest". What
is required is that the arrested person be informed, in writing, of the basic
facts constituting the offence. If such facts are contained in a document
supplied to the arrestee, the constitutional mandate stands substantially
satisfied.
33. It is also relevant that the Revisionist was produced before the
Magistrate and was represented by Counsel at the time of remand. No
specific prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused on account
of the alleged procedural lapse. The remand order reflects that the learned
Magistrate considered the objection raised and proceeded to pass the order
upon being satisfied of the legality of arrest.
34. Revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional
errors or manifest illegality. In the absence of clear violation of
constitutional safeguards, and particularly in view of the legal position
prevailing at the time of arrest, this Court does not find that the impugned
remand order suffers from any infirmity warranting interference.
35. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) is sacrosanct and
must be scrupulously followed. However, its enforcement must be guided
by substance rather than technicality. In the facts of the present case, this
Court is of the considered view that the requirement of communication of
grounds of arrest stood substantially complied with.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any
illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of
remand.
The Criminal Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1843
It is clarified that any observations made herein are confined to
the limited issue raised in the present revision and shall not be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
SB
Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2025----Sanjay Kumar @ Fauji v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
