Grounds of arrest under CrPC section 50 require effective communication; preventive detention safeguards do not govern cognizable arrests.

In an arrest on suspicion of a cognizable offence, section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is satisfied if the arrested person is effectively informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be; Article 22(5) on preventive detention does not govern that requirement. On the facts, oral communication, disclosure in the remand application, and service of the panchnama within 24 hours supported compliance. The Court also stated that even assumed non-compliance would not by itself render the initial arrest illegal. The bail order based solely on alleged breach of section 50 was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused were entitled to bail on the ground of alleged non-compliance with section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in communicating the grounds of arrest, and whether the bail order passed by the Magistrate was sustainable.

Analysis: The statutory requirement under section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was construed in the setting of an arrest on accusation of a cognizable offence, not as a rule of preventive detention. The Court held that Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which governs preventive detention, could not control the meaning of section 50. The relevant safeguard in such a case was Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, requiring that the arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be. On the facts, the accused were apprehended with suspected heroin, the police officer stated that the grounds were orally communicated, the remand application disclosed the particulars of the offence, and the panchnama was served within 24 hours. The Court therefore found compliance with the statutory requirement and held that non-compliance, even if assumed, would not make the initial arrest itself illegal.

Conclusion: The bail order based solely on alleged breach of section 50 was unsustainable, and the challenge by the State succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order granting bail was set aside, and the accused did not succeed in establishing a right to release on the asserted ground of defective communication of arrest particulars.

Ratio Decidendi: In an arrest on accusation of an offence, section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is satisfied if the arrested person is effectively informed of the particulars or grounds of arrest forthwith, and Article 22(5) governing preventive detention cannot be imported to require written communication.

---