Non Supplying Ground Of Arrest And Non Preparation Of Disclosure Memo At Police Station Has Become Routine Practice: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has said that it has become the routine practice of non supplying the ground of arrest and non preparation of disclosure memo at the police station.

It was observed that suppressing the grounds of arrest and bypassing the statutory preparation of recovery panchnamas have routinely undermined constitutional protections under Article 22(1).

Deploring the use of pre-printed proformas for remand by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to issue strict corrective guidelines to subordinate officers to ensure immediate compliance with the mandates established by the Apex Court.

The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed, "It has become the routine practice of non supplying the ground of arrest and non preparation of disclosure memo at the police station in compliance of the order of the Apex Court mentioned above, therefore, this court directs to Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad to look into this issue and issue appropriate direction to his subordinate police officers."

Facts of the Case

The applicant filed an instant bail application seeking enlargement on bail during the pendency of the trial in Case Crime No. 16 of 2026. The case was registered at Police Station-Tronica City, District-Ghaziabad, under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution asserted that a country-made pistol was recovered based on the pointing out of the applicant. The applicant was detained in judicial custody in connection with the said offence.

Contention of the Parties

The Applicant argued that the investigating agency failed to supply the written grounds of arrest to the applicant at the time of arrest or at any stage prior to the passing of the remand order by the Magistrate. It was contended that no disclosure memo (panchnama) was prepared at the police station before proceeding with the alleged recovery of the country-made pistol, which directly violated the settled position of law.

The Applicant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR), and the first informant merely expressed doubt and apprehension against him due to old enmity. There was no eye-witness or incriminating material connecting the applicant to the alleged crime. It was further argued that a co-accused with a similar role had already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of the High Court, and the applicant was entitled to the same benefit on the ground of parity. The applicant had properly explained his criminal history, the charge sheet had already been submitted, and there was no further requirement for custodial interrogation.

The State opposed the prayer for bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offence. However, the State could not dispute the procedural lapses or the fact that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Non-compliance with this safeguard violated the right to personal liberty under Article 21, thereby rendering the arrest and subsequent remand orders illegal.

The Court noted with concern that the compliance affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector did not deny the omission, and no justification was offered as to why the grounds of arrest were withheld from the applicant. The Court highlighted that before acting on a statement of an accused in custody to effect a recovery, a disclosure memo (panchnama) must be prepared at the police station in the presence of two independent witnesses.

The Court observed that the investigating authority completely bypassed this procedure, making the recovery deficient and unreliable in the eyes of the law. The Court scrutinized the remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ghaziabad, and observed that it was executed on a mechanical, printed proforma. The Court reprimanded this approach as a clear non-application of judicial mind and a failure of the Magistrate's duty to ascertain constitutional compliance before authorizing remand.

"From perusal of the remand order annexed by the counsel for the applicant along with supplementary affidavit it is clear that there is nothing but printed proforma which was subsequently filled up and signed by the CJM, Ghaziabad. This is not only non application of judicial mind by the C.J.M., Ghaziabad but also clear violation of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar, therefore, this Court also directs C.J.M., Ghaziabad to be more careful in future taking into account his period of service", the Court said.

Taking into consideration that the co-accused was already released on bail, that the investigating agency committed serious procedural infractions, and that jails were overcrowded, the Court opined that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail.

Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directed the release of the applicant upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, and ordered strict verification of identity and residence proofs, including mobile numbers and regulatory identification documents, before accepting the bonds.

Cause Title: Sandeep Baisoya v. State of U.P. [Neutral Citation:2026:AHC:11988]

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Amit Saxena

Respondent: AGA M.L. Pandey

Click here to read/download the Order