<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (2) TMI 176 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765630</link>
    <description>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).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 08:42:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 176 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765630</link>
      <description>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).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>