Grounds of arrest must be clearly communicated; bare arrest memo and family intimation do not satisfy constitutional safeguards.

Meaningful and timely communication of the actual grounds of arrest is required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC; a bare arrest memo or intimation to a family member is insufficient if it does not disclose the factual basis for arrest. The record showed no particulars of grounds in the arrest memo, and the State's communications did not supply the requisite basis. The right to legal assistance and to oppose custodial remand formed part of this safeguard against arbitrary arrest. The arrest was therefore held illegal for non-compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements, and the subsequent remand orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arrest was illegal for failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, and whether the subsequent remand orders and arrest memos were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the corresponding mandate of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 require that the grounds of arrest be communicated to the arrested person in a meaningful and timely manner. A mere arrest memo or intimation to a family member does not satisfy that requirement unless it conveys the actual grounds necessitating arrest. The record showed that the arrest memo contained no column or particulars disclosing the grounds of arrest, and the communications relied upon by the State did not furnish the requisite factual basis. The Court also treated the right to legal assistance and the ability to oppose custodial remand as part of the constitutional safeguard against arbitrary arrest.

Conclusion: The arrest was held illegal for non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the subsequent remand orders were set aside.

---