2025 (2) TMI 176 - HC - Indian Laws

Police must inform arrest grounds immediately during arrest, not later, or arrest becomes unlawful under Section 50 CrPC

Delhi HC held that the term 'forthwith' in Section 50 CrPC requires immediate and simultaneous communication of arrest grounds at the time of arrest, not ... Interpretation of statute - analysis of the precise definition of the word “forthwith” as used in section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - scope of the legal obligation it imposes on the State to supply the ‘grounds of arrest’ to an arrestee. HELD THAT:- The requirement of serving upon an arrestee the ‘grounds of arrest’ (or grounds for arrest as it is alternatively phrased) as distinct from citing the ‘reasons for arrest’ for seeking remand has gained much significance in light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. In its verdict in Prabir Purkayastha [2024 (5) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between the ‘grounds of arrest’ and ‘reasons for arrest’, observing 'the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are general in nature.' An I.O. can therefore no longer treat the matter of serving the grounds of arrest upon an arrestee with any levity. It is in this context that this court has carefully analysed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State in the present case; and the following position has emerged from the analysis - The phrase “grounds for such arrest” appears both in section 50 Cr.P.C. as well as in section 19 of the PMLA. However, there is a significant difference between the words that precede the phrase “grounds for such arrest” in the said two provisions. Without addressing the controversy as to whether the petitioner stood deprived of his liberty once he reached the police station at 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024, there can be no contest that the petitioner was formally arrested when the arrest memo was issued to him i.e., at 06:30 p.m. on 17.05.2024. In compliance of section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as interpreted above, the I.O. was required to serve the grounds of arrest upon the petitioner simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest memo. This was admittedly not done - the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandate of section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. Conclusion - i) The term 'forthwith' in Section 50 Cr.P.C. requires immediate and simultaneous communication of arrest grounds at the time of arrest. This interpretation is essential to uphold the constitutional right against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. ii) The petitioner's arrest was unlawful due to non-compliance with the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest 'forthwith. Petition allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered by the Court was the interpretation of the term 'forthwith' as used in Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and the legal obligation it imposes on the State to inform an arrestee of the grounds of arrest. Additionally, the Court examined whether the petitioner's arrest and subsequent remand to police custody were lawful, particularly in light of the alleged failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in a timely manner.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Interpretation of 'Forthwith' in Section 50 Cr.P.C.Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee 'forthwith.' The Court examined precedents, including decisions of Co-ordinate Benches and the Supreme Court, which interpret similar provisions, such as in Pranav Kuckreja and Kshitij Ghildiyal cases.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the term 'forthwith' implies an immediate and simultaneous communication of the arrest grounds at the time of arrest. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the arrest memo lacked any reference to the grounds of arrest, and the grounds were only communicated to the petitioner through his counsel at 4:40 p.m. on 18.05.2024, after the remand application was filed.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the interpretation of 'forthwith' to the facts, concluding that the delay in communicating the grounds of arrest violated Section 50 Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State argued that the grounds were communicated within 24 hours, which should suffice. However, the Court rejected this, emphasizing the need for immediate communication at the time of arrest.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the arrest was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 50 Cr.P.C., as the grounds were not communicated 'forthwith.'2. Legality of Arrest and RemandRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. and constitutional provisions regarding arrest and remand.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the petitioner's arrest was not conducted in accordance with the legal requirements, as the grounds of arrest were not communicated at the time of arrest.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court highlighted discrepancies in the arrest memo and the timing of communication of the grounds of arrest.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal standards to the facts, determining that the arrest and remand were unlawful due to the failure to meet the procedural requirements.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State's argument that detention and arrest are distinct was rejected, as the Court emphasized the need for immediate communication of arrest grounds.Conclusions: The Court set aside the arrest and remand order, directing the petitioner's release due to non-compliance with Section 50 Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The Court established that the term 'forthwith' in Section 50 Cr.P.C. requires immediate and simultaneous communication of arrest grounds at the time of arrest. This interpretation is essential to uphold the constitutional right against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court determined that the petitioner's arrest was unlawful due to non-compliance with the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest 'forthwith.' Consequently, the remand order was also set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be released from custody, subject to certain conditions.Preservation of Verbatim Quotes: The Court quoted from Pranav Kuckreja, emphasizing the significance of the term 'forthwith' and the necessity of immediate communication of arrest grounds to uphold constitutional rights.