2025 (12) TMI 1303 - HC - Indian Laws

Bribery arrest of public officer challenged for missing written arrest grounds under Article 22(1); bail denied

In a second bail application arising from alleged bribery by a public officer, the dominant issue was whether failure to communicate 'grounds of arrest' ... Seeking grant of bail (second bail application) - Allegation of bribe against the GST officer / Superintendent (Petitioner) - at the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest, in writing, were never communicated to the applicant, which is violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The constitutional mandate of communicating the grounds of arrest has consistently been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Before the judgment in the case of Vihaan Kumar [2025 (2) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT] was delivered, the requirement was to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing. In the case of Vihaan Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court kept it open to the person effecting arrest to decide the mode and method of communicating the grounds of arrest in such a manner that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved. It means that oral information was also held to be the compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. But, after the judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing. This is the legal position. What are the grounds of arrest? It may be noted that the “grounds of arrest” and the “reasons of arrest” are two separate concepts. It is also settled law that in a cognizable offence, the police may arrest without warrant. But, it is not necessary that in every cognizable offence, the accused must be arrested. “Power to arrest” is one thing and “necessity to arrest” is different. As such, what is “ground of arrest” has not been defined anywhere. Whether the grounds of arrest should be separately written on a sheet of paper and given in writing to the arrestee so as to comply the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India or if a written document, which contains the grounds of arrest is delivered to the arrestee, it would be sufficient compliance of it? - HELD THAT:- In every case, when arrest is effected, there are documents based on which the arresting officer “forms an opinion” or the arresting officer has basis for “reasons to believe” that the arrestee has committed some offence. It is thereafter, the arresting officer further makes an opinion as to whether the arrest is necessary or not - The first part i.e. the basis on which the arresting officer forms an opinion that the arrestee has committed some offence are grounds of arrest. They are in some documents. This Court is of the view that if that document as such is given to an arrestee, it is definitely communicating the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee. The law nowhere requires that the grounds of arrest should be written separately on a separate sheet and thereafter it is to be given to an arrestee. In the instant case, the grounds of arrest have, in fact, been communicated to the applicant in writing by way of the arrest memo, which was supplied to the applicant at the time of his arrest, which is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no violation of Fundamental Rights of the applicant as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. The bail application is rejected. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the arrest was vitiated for non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution on the allegation that the 'grounds of arrest' were not communicated to the arrestee in writing, thereby entitling him to bail. (ii) Whether supplying an arrest memo that records the basic facts constituting the alleged offence (even if captioned as 'reasons for arrest in brief') amounts to written communication of the 'grounds of arrest' and constitutes sufficient compliance with Article 22(1). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Alleged violation of Article 22(1) due to non-communication of grounds of arrest in writing Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court treated the constitutional obligation under Article 22(1) (read with the statutory duty under Section 50 of the Code) as requiring the arrestee to be informed of the grounds for arrest. The Court examined the evolution of the requirement concerning the mode of such communication (oral/written) through the Supreme Court decisions discussed in the order, and extracted the operative position that the constitutional mandate to inform grounds is mandatory, with the later position requiring written communication. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished between 'grounds of arrest' and 'reasons for arrest'. It held that 'reasons' may be general parameters linked to necessity of arrest, whereas 'grounds' are the basic facts and precise acts attributed to the arrestee constituting the offence and forming the basis for the arresting officer's belief. The Court accepted that, after the later clarification in the discussed Supreme Court decision, the legal position is that grounds must be communicated in writing; however, for the present determination, the decisive question was factual compliance-whether the applicant was in fact given written grounds. Conclusion: The Court conclusively found no breach of Article 22(1) because the grounds of arrest were communicated to the applicant in writing through the arrest memo supplied at the time of arrest. Consequently, the asserted constitutional violation was not established and could not justify bail. Issue (ii): Whether an arrest memo containing basic facts of the offence (though titled as 'reasons for arrest') is sufficient written communication of grounds; whether separate 'grounds sheet' is required Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court identified the content of 'grounds of arrest' as the basic facts constituting the offence and the precise acts alleged, akin to what a charge would convey at trial. The Court also considered the manner of compliance with Article 22(1), addressing whether the Constitution or law requires that grounds must be separately drafted and supplied on a distinct sheet. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that 'grounds of arrest' need not be written on a separate document; if the grounds are already recorded in an existing document and that document is supplied to the arrestee, it amounts to written communication. Applying this to the facts, the Court found that the arrest memo contained the essential accusation-demand and acceptance of bribe amounting to an offence under the relevant provision-which the Court characterized as the basic facts constituting the offence and 'akin to the charge' that may be framed at trial. Although the arrest memo used the heading 'Reasons for arrest in brief,' the Court treated the content as the 'grounds of arrest' in substance and held that supplying this memo satisfied Article 22(1). Conclusion: The Court conclusively decided that (a) supplying a document that contains the grounds is sufficient compliance, and (b) there is no requirement that the grounds be recorded on a separate sheet. Since the arrest memo with the basic factual grounds was supplied, Article 22(1) was complied with. DISPOSITION (material to decision) On the sole ground urged for bail-alleged non-compliance with Article 22(1)-the Court held that written grounds were in fact communicated through the supplied arrest memo; therefore, no violation of fundamental rights was made out and the bail application was rejected.