Grounds of arrest must be told immediately at arrest; later disclosure before remand does not cure non-compliance.

Section 50 CrPC requires the grounds of arrest to be communicated forthwith, meaning immediately and contemporaneously with arrest, not later before remand. The Delhi HC distinguished the grounds of arrest from the formal reasons recorded in an arrest memo and held that post-arrest supply, even within 24 hours, does not satisfy the statutory and constitutional mandate because it deprives the arrested person of an immediate opportunity to seek legal advice and challenge custody. On that basis, non-disclosure at the time of arrest vitiated the arrest and also invalidated the remand order founded on the same non-compliance with Section 50 and Article 22(1).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to communicate the grounds of arrest "forthwith" is satisfied by supplying them only after arrest and immediately before remand; (ii) whether the remand order stood vitiated for non-compliance with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to communicate the grounds of arrest "forthwith" is satisfied by supplying them only after arrest and immediately before remand.

Analysis: The phrase "grounds of arrest" was distinguished from the formal "reasons for arrest" mentioned in an arrest memo. The expression "forthwith" in Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to require strict compliance, meaning that the grounds of arrest must be communicated immediately and without delay, contemporaneously with the arrest and as part of the arrest memo. A later communication, even within 24 hours, was held insufficient for compliance with Section 50 because the provision protects the arrested person's ability to obtain legal advice and challenge custody at the earliest stage.

Conclusion: The grounds of arrest had to be supplied at the time of arrest itself, and later service before remand did not amount to compliance.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand order stood vitiated for non-compliance with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Since the arrest memo did not simultaneously contain or convey the grounds of arrest, the arrest was held to be vitiated. The subsequent furnishing of written grounds shortly before the remand hearing did not give a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel and oppose custody. The remand order was therefore based on an erroneous understanding that post-arrest service within 24 hours was enough, whereas the constitutional and statutory mandate required immediate communication.

Conclusion: The remand order was set aside as vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The arrest and custody process was found unlawful for failure to communicate the grounds of arrest forthwith, and the petitioner was directed to be released subject to furnishing the directed bond and sureties.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the grounds of arrest must be communicated immediately and contemporaneously with the arrest, and failure to do so invalidates the arrest and any remand founded on that non-compliance.

---