Written grounds of arrest are mandatory; failure to supply them vitiates arrest and all consequential remand orders.

The court held that arrest is vitiated when the grounds of arrest are not furnished in writing as required by Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC. Oral intimation alone was held insufficient, so the arrest was illegal. Because the arrest itself was unconstitutional and procedurally defective, the initial remand order and all subsequent remand orders could not be sustained, and the later filing of the charge-sheet did not cure the defect. The petitioner was therefore directed to be released on bail on terms to the trial court's satisfaction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's arrest was illegal for failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing in terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the remand order dated 23/02/2024 and the subsequent remand orders could be sustained when the arrest was not in conformity with the constitutional and statutory mandate.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's arrest was illegal for failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing in terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The right under Article 22(1) requires that an arrested person be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest. The Court applied the law declared by the Supreme Court that this communication must be meaningful and, after the later clarification, the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing. The arrest form and station diary showed only an oral intimation of the reasons for arrest, with no written communication of grounds. That omission amounted to non-compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguard.

Conclusion: The arrest was illegal and in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand order dated 23/02/2024 and the subsequent remand orders could be sustained when the arrest was not in conformity with the constitutional and statutory mandate.

Analysis: Once the arrest was found to be unconstitutional and contrary to the mandatory procedure, the initial remand and the later remand orders founded on that arrest could not survive. The filing of the charge-sheet did not cure the illegality committed at the stage of arrest and remand.

Conclusion: The remand order dated 23/02/2024 and the subsequent remand orders were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the arrest was declared illegal, the remand orders were quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: After the law declared by the Supreme Court, the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing expeditiously as part of the mandatory safeguard under Article 22(1), and non-compliance vitiates the arrest and all consequential remand orders.

---