Grounds of arrest must be meaningfully communicated; non-compliance with constitutional safeguards vitiates custody and supports bail.

Failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in a meaningful manner, and in a language understood by the arrested person, breaches Article 22(1) and the corresponding statutory safeguard. The arrest memo's bare reference to GST offences, without supplying the actual grounds, was treated as insufficient, and the arrest authorisation was regarded as an internal document rather than communication to the accused. Applying the principle that the arresting agency bears the burden of proving compliance, the Court held the arrest illegal and the custody vitiated, entitling the applicant to bail subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant's arrest was vitiated for failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the corresponding statutory safeguard, and whether such illegality entitled the applicant to bail.

Analysis: The arrest memo and the authorisation to arrest were examined against the constitutional requirement that the arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest in a meaningful manner and in a language understood by him. The arrest memo merely recorded that the applicant had been arrested in connection with offences under the GST law and stated that the grounds had been explained, but it did not supply the actual grounds of arrest. The authorisation to arrest was treated as an internal document addressed to the officer and not as communication of grounds to the applicant. Relying on the governing principles that the burden to prove compliance with Article 22(1) lies on the arresting agency, the Court found that the applicant had not been furnished the grounds of arrest as required by law.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be illegal for non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory mandate, and the applicant was held entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was ordered to be released on bail, subject to conditions, because the custody was found to be vitiated by breach of the constitutional safeguard governing arrest.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in a meaningful manner to the arrested person violates Article 22(1) and vitiates the arrest, entitling the accused to bail.

---