Failure To Record Information In GD Does Not Automatically Render Arrest Illegal: Allahabad High Court
The Bench held that the grounds of arrest communicated through a recovery memo prepared contemporaneously with the arrest memo constitutes is compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has clarified that the failure to produce a general diary entry recording intimation to an arrestee's relatives under Section 48 of the BNSS does not, by itself, render an arrest illegal, particularly where call records independently show that the nominated persons were, in fact, contacted in time.
In the matter, in a police raid on the night of June 30, 2026, at the eleventh floor of a commercial building in Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, following a tip-off about an illegal cyber call centre, uncovered a large-scale fraud operation. Through the fraud, callers impersonated officials of US federal agencies, including the FBI, Federal Trade Commission and various District Courts, to defraud American citizens by creating panic over hacked bank accounts and threatened prosecution, before extracting money through gift cards, cryptocurrency or parcels routed through hawala channels. A total of 119 persons, including the fourteen petitioners, were found on the premises and arrested, along with laptops, mobile phones and networking equipment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani observed, “…it is established that the petitioners were furnished grounds and reasons of arrest through the recovery memo and the phone calls were made to the nominated persons, therefore, procedural omission or a failure to record the information in the general diary does not automatically render the foundational arrest illegal, in its entirety”.
An FIR was registered under multiple provisions of the BNS, Information Technology Act and Telecommunications Act.
The petitioners claimed they were salaried employees recruited through a job portal without knowledge of the fraud. They approached the High Court under Article 226 through a habeas corpus petition, alleging illegal arrest for failure to prepare a proper arrest memo under Section 36 BNSS, communicate the grounds of arrest under Section 47, and inform their family members under Section 48, read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. They also claimed to have been held for nearly 36 hours before being formally shown as arrested, and challenged the July 2, 2026 remand order as mechanical and passed without judicial application of mind.
The State maintained that the arrest memo and detailed recovery memo, bearing the petitioners' signatures and containing the grounds and reasons for arrest, were prepared simultaneously at the spot and furnished to each accused. It also pointed out that the petitioners had filed no rejoinder to controvert this claim.
In its reasoning, the Court extensively examined the constitutional and statutory framework governing communication of grounds of arrest, tracing the law through precedents, and the recent pronouncement in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which mandates that grounds of arrest be furnished in writing at the earliest, and in any event not later than two hours before production for remand.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the recovery memo, containing a detailed narration of the modus operandi and the specific reasons necessitating arrest, had admittedly been received and signed by the petitioners, and that this satisfied the substance of the constitutional requirement, notwithstanding the absence of a formal signature on the arrest memo proper.
On the question of intimation to relatives, the Court accepted that call records demonstrated that nominated contacts had been informed, and held that the mere absence of a corresponding general diary entry could not, by itself, vitiate the arrest.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the contention of illegal detention beyond 24 hours, found no infirmity warranting interference with the remand order, and dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the dismissal would not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, including any pending bail applications.
Cause Title: Karolyn @ Caroline Kharnaior Thru. Her Father Paramjit Singh Chhabra & Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Others 2026:AHC-LKO:64598-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Sagar Singh and Ishan Baghel, Advocates.
Respondent: Anant Pratap Singh and Girjesh Dwivedi, AGA.