Written communication of arrest grounds required; failure to do so made the arrest illegal and remand unsustainable.

Article 22(1) and Section 50 of the Code require the grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing at the time of arrest; a mere arrest memo or intimation to a family member does not satisfy that mandate. Because the arrest memo and related communications recorded only the fact of arrest and not the grounds, the Court held that the petitioner was deprived of a meaningful chance to oppose custodial remand and seek legal protection. The arrest was therefore illegal, and the consequential remand orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's arrest and the subsequent remand orders were illegal for failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, in breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The arrest memo and the other communications relied upon did not contain the grounds of arrest; they only recorded the fact of arrest and information to a family member. The Court held that the constitutional and statutory mandate requires communication of the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest, and that a mere arrest memo or general intimation does not satisfy this requirement. The Court further noted that the absence of communicated grounds deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to oppose custodial remand and seek legal protection, rendering the arrest and the consequential remand orders unsustainable.

Conclusion: The arrest was illegal and the subsequent remand orders were liable to be quashed. The issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

---