Grounds of arrest must be furnished; mere arrest memo is insufficient, and illegal arrest can invalidate consequential remand.

Non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest under Section 50 CrPC vitiated the arrest because an arrest memo in prescribed form that merely intimated the arrest did not satisfy the mandatory constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1). The Court held that the memo contained no worthwhile particulars disclosing the grounds of arrest, so the arrest was illegal. The subsequent remand order, being consequential to that unlawful arrest, was also invalid and was set aside. The appellant was directed to be released unless required in any other case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arrest and consequential remand were liable to be set aside for non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in compliance with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The only document furnished to the appellant was an arrest memo in the prescribed format, which merely intimated the arrest and did not contain worthwhile particulars disclosing the grounds of arrest. Such an arrest memo could not be treated as compliance with the mandatory requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest. Section 50 of the Code is intended to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and non-compliance with that safeguard vitiates the arrest. The defect also affected the remand order passed thereafter, making it consequential to the illegal arrest.

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

---