TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the constitutional and statutory requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to a person arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 applied from the date of the Supreme Court's decision in Pankaj Bansal or only from the later decision in Prabir Purkayastha, and whether non-furnishing of such written grounds vitiated the arrest and subsequent remand orders.
Analysis: The governing principle was traced to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which protects an arrestee by requiring communication of the grounds of arrest effectively and in a manner that enables legal recourse. The earlier decision in Pankaj Bansal held that written grounds must be furnished as a matter of course and, by using the expression "henceforth", gave prospective effect only to the statutory interpretation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Prabir Purkayastha applied the same constitutional requirement to arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and held that the mandate of informing the grounds of arrest in writing applies pari passu to UAPA arrests. The Court further noted that the distinction between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest" is material, that the written communication must contain personal and case-specific particulars, and that the burden to prove compliance with Article 22(1) lies on the investigating agency. On the admitted record, the petitioners were not furnished written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest or thereafter, and the remand papers did not cure that defect.
Conclusion: The requirement of serving the grounds of arrest in writing applied to the petitioners from the date of Pankaj Bansal, the arrest was vitiated, and the remand orders could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The arrest and custody of all three petitioners were held unsustainable for breach of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1), and they were directed to be released forthwith on furnishing bonds and sureties.
Ratio Decidendi: A person arrested for an offence under UAPA or any criminal statute must be furnished with written, case-specific grounds of arrest at the earliest, and non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest as well as consequential remand orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
