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 arrest and police custody remand were vitiated because the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing at the time of arrest and before the remand order, and whether the rule in Pankaj Bansal applied to arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Analysis: The right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India requires that the arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest in a meaningful manner, and the Court held that this necessarily means furnishing the written grounds of arrest at the earliest. The Court found no material distinction between Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 43B(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, both resting on the same constitutional safeguard. It held that the interpretation in Pankaj Bansal applied pari passu to arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On the facts, the arrest memo did not contain the personal grounds of arrest, the remand order was passed before the accused's counsel was effectively informed, and the later transmission of the remand application could not cure the defect. The filing of the charge sheet did not validate the initial illegality.
Conclusion: The arrest and police custody remand were held to be illegal and vitiated for non-supply of written grounds of arrest, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing to the arrested person at the earliest as a constitutional requirement, and failure to do so vitiates the arrest and any consequential remand; this rule applies equally to arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 where the statutory language is pari materia with the comparable provision considered earlier.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
