Grounds of arrest and judicial custody turned on documented communication and prior cooperation, leading to bail with conditions.

Communication of the grounds of arrest was supported by the arrest memo and panchnama, which recorded that the accused was informed in vernacular language and acknowledged his rights by signature, so the objection to illegality of arrest on that basis was not accepted. On custody, the accused's prior cooperation with investigation and attendance pursuant to summons, together with a further summons already issued for a later date, led to the arrest being treated as hasty; judicial custody was refused and bail was ordered subject to conditions securing attendance and cooperation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest was illegal on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not duly communicated to the accused. (ii) Whether judicial custody should be granted or the accused should be released on bail in view of the stage of investigation and the circumstances of arrest.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest was illegal on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not duly communicated to the accused.

Analysis: The arrest memo and arrest panchnama recorded that the grounds of arrest were explained to the accused in vernacular language and that he was informed of his rights. His signatures appeared on the relevant documents. On that material, the objection that the grounds of arrest were not communicated was not accepted.

Conclusion: The arrest was not held illegal on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether judicial custody should be granted or the accused should be released on bail in view of the stage of investigation and the circumstances of arrest.

Analysis: The accused had already cooperated with the investigation and had appeared pursuant to summons. A further summons had been issued for appearance on a later date, yet arrest was made before that date. In these circumstances, the arrest was treated as hasty and the request for judicial custody was declined. Bail was directed with conditions to secure attendance and cooperation.

Conclusion: The accused was ordered to be released on bail and not sent to judicial custody.

Final Conclusion: The application for judicial custody failed, and the accused obtained release on bail subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arrest documents show communication of the grounds of arrest, and the accused has cooperated with investigation while further summons remain pending, judicial custody may be refused and bail granted if the arrest appears unnecessarily precipitate.

---