2024 (12) TMI 1229 - HC - Indian Laws

Police arrest declared illegal for failing to communicate grounds immediately under Section 50 Cr.P.C.

PRANAV KUCKREJA (IN POLICE CUSTODY) Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Delhi HC held petitioner's arrest illegal due to non-compliance with Section 50 Cr.P.C. The court found that grounds for arrest were not communicated ... Seeking declaration of the arrest of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and void - serious accusations of mental, physical, and sexual abuse against the petitioner and his parents, implicating them in acts of coercion and complicity - whether the grounds for the petitioner’s arrest were duly communicated in compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court's judgment in Pravir Purkayastha [2024 (5) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT]? HELD THAT:- The Courts have time and again deprecated the practice of filling up columns in proforma indicating the formal “reasons” for which the accused was being arrested. It is also pertinent to note that Section 50 Cr. P.C. uses the word “forthwith.” which implies that “grounds for such arrest” have to be communicated at the time of the arrest. This requirement is designed to ensure that the arrested individual is promptly made aware of the reasons for their detention, thereby safeguarding their legal rights. Bare perusal of the judgments of Joginder Kumar [1994 (4) TMI 385 - SUPREME COURT] and Siddharth [2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT] makes it clear that the Indian Supreme Court has always been very sensitive and conscious about the individual’s rights. The jurisprudence which is being evolved is that the police may not arrest a person only because it’s permissible, the arrest should be justified also and must have grounds of arrest communicated forthwith. It is a settled proposition that the absence of specific grounds of arrest violates statutory and constitutional rights under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Any person has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. It is no longer res integra that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrested individual expeditiously. Providing the grounds of arrest to the person being arrested is of utmost sanctity and significance. This information serves as the fundamental basis for the arrested individual to seek legal advice, challenge the remand, and apply for bail - In the context of present case, it is pertinent to mention that Section 50 Cr. P.C. uses the word “forthwith”. The dictionary meaning of the word “forthwith” as defined in the Shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles, fifth edition, volume - 01 A-M is (1) Along with, at the same time; and (2) Immediately, at one, without delay. The court makes it clear that the present order been passed for release of the petitioner on the technical non-compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C. This court has not gone into merits of the case. The prosecution/victim shall all the necessary liberties to proceed with the investigation and take all the steps for smooth investigation of the case in accordance with law. This court has examined facts of this case only in perspective of Section 50 Cr.P.C., which is akin to Section 47 of BNSS, 2024. The present petition along with pending applications stands disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the arrest of the petitioner under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C.2. Compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.3. Procedural adherence in communicating the grounds of arrest.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Arrest:The primary issue in this case is whether the arrest of the petitioner was conducted in compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that 'every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.' The petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as the grounds for arrest were not communicated at the time of arrest, violating Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution. The court found that the arrest memo did not specify the grounds for arrest at the time of arrest, which constitutes a violation of Section 50 of Cr.P.C., as elaborated in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi).2. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards:The court reiterated the importance of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1), which require that the grounds of arrest be communicated to the accused. The judgment referenced several precedents, including Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that arrest should only occur when absolutely necessary and that personal liberty is paramount. The court noted that the absence of specific grounds of arrest violates statutory and constitutional rights, as the grounds must be communicated in writing expeditiously to allow the accused to seek legal advice, challenge the remand, and apply for bail.3. Procedural Adherence:The court scrutinized the procedural adherence in the arrest process, particularly the communication of the grounds of arrest. The Additional Standing Counsel argued that the grounds were communicated through the remand application provided to the petitioner the day after the arrest. However, the court found this insufficient, as Section 50 of Cr.P.C. requires that the grounds be communicated 'forthwith,' meaning immediately and without delay. The court emphasized that the term 'forthwith' implies promptness and urgency, and any delay in communication violates the procedural safeguards.Conclusion:The court concluded that the arrest of the petitioner was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the constitutional requirements under Article 22(1). The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith, subject to furnishing a bail bond. The court also highlighted the need to update the Arrest Memo Forms to ensure effective compliance with legal requirements. The Commissioner of Delhi Police was directed to take necessary actions for the modification of the arrest memo forms to include a column for recording the grounds of arrest.