Grounds of arrest must be meaningfully communicated; a bare arrest memo does not cure non-compliance and vitiates remand.

A mere arrest memo containing only basic particulars does not satisfy the legal duty to communicate the grounds of arrest with meaningful detail. The Supreme Court held that this amounted to non-compliance with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which implements Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Because the arrested person was not properly informed of the grounds of arrest, the arrest and consequential remand were set aside, and release was directed unless required in any other case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's arrest and consequential remand were liable to be set aside for non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest as required by law.

Analysis: The material supplied to the appellant was only an arrest memo in a prescribed format, containing basic particulars such as the name of the appellant, place of arrest, and a reference to the statement of a co-accused. It did not convey the grounds of arrest with any meaningful particulars. Such a memo could not be treated as compliance with the statutory requirement to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest. This deficiency amounted to clear non-compliance with the mandate under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which gives effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The arrest and the consequential remand order were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere arrest memo without meaningful particulars does not satisfy the legal requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest, and non-compliance vitiates the arrest and consequential remand.

---