Grounds of arrest must be clearly communicated; later remand does not cure the constitutional illegality, though bail may be granted.

Article 22(1) requires that an arrestee be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest, and mere reference to sections is insufficient. The court found that the detenu was not meaningfully told the reasons for arrest and that the arrest memos did not disclose the grounds in a proper manner, rendering the arrest and custody illegal. A subsequent remand order did not cure this constitutional defect because the illegality arose at the initial stage of arrest. Relief was nevertheless moulded by directing release on bail subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detenu was informed of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether subsequent remand could cure the illegality arising from non-compliance with the constitutional requirement, and what relief should follow.

Issue (i): Whether the detenu was informed of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 22(1) mandates that a person arrested must be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest. On the materials before it, the Court found that the detenu was taken into custody in both instances without being told the reasons for arrest. The arrest memos also did not disclose the reasons or grounds in a meaningful manner. The obligation to communicate the full particulars of the offence or grounds of arrest is mandatory and is not satisfied by mere reference to sections. The constitutional right is immediate and absolute, and the prosecution did not displace the factual assertion of non-communication.

Conclusion: The requirement under Article 22(1) was violated, and the arrest and custody were illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether subsequent remand could cure the illegality arising from non-compliance with the constitutional requirement, and what relief should follow.

Analysis: A later remand order does not cure a constitutional infirmity caused by violation of Article 22(1). The governing principle is that custody must be lawful at the relevant stage, and where the initial arrest is unconstitutional, the defect is not erased by remand. At the same time, the Court held that unconditional release was not necessary in the circumstances and that relief could be moulded to protect the constitutional right while balancing the case facts.

Conclusion: The subsequent remand did not validate the illegal arrest, but the proper relief was release on bail subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The habeas corpus petition succeeded on the ground of violation of the arrested person's constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, and the detenu was directed to be released on bail on specified terms.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to inform an arrestee of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1) renders the arrest and continued custody illegal, and such a constitutional defect is not cured by a subsequent remand order.

---