Intelligible grounds of arrest and valid remand are mandatory; mere citation of sections does not justify detention.

Article 22(1) requires an arrested person to be told the real and intelligible grounds of arrest, not merely the statutory provisions invoked; citation of sections alone was held inadequate because it did not disclose the factual basis needed to understand and challenge the arrest, so the arrest was illegal. Continued custody also had to rest on a valid remand order; a mere direction to list the matter later did not amount to remand under the criminal procedure law, so the detention after production before the Magistrate was unlawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether informing the arrested person only of the statutory provisions under which he was being arrested satisfied Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the continued custody was lawful in the absence of a proper remand order and in view of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether informing the arrested person only of the statutory provisions under which he was being arrested satisfied Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 22(1) requires that a person arrested be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, and those grounds must be intelligible and sufficiently specific to enable the person to understand why liberty has been curtailed and to prepare his defence. Mere mention of sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Indian Penal Code did not communicate the actual grounds, because the cited provisions covered multiple possible offences and did not disclose the particular factual basis of the arrest. Informing a person only of sections, without the underlying facts, was held to be inadequate compliance.

Conclusion: The arrest was in breach of Article 22(1) and was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the continued custody was lawful in the absence of a proper remand order and in view of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Although the person was produced before the Magistrate within the constitutional time limit, the later custody was not supported by a valid remand order. A mere direction that the case be listed on a future date did not amount to remand to custody as contemplated by Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custody must rest on a lawful order, and absent such an order the detention could not be justified.

Conclusion: The continued detention was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and the detenu was ordered to be released forthwith because both the arrest and the subsequent custody were found to be illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Article 22(1) requires communication of the real and intelligible grounds of arrest, not merely citation of statutory provisions, and detention after arrest must be supported by a valid remand order under the governing criminal procedure law.

---