While upholding a remand order passed against an accused in a case of criminal conspiracy and forgery, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that the constitutional mandate does not require that the grounds of arrest must necessarily be recorded on a separate document distinct from the arrest memo. The High Court also noted that the revisionist was informed of the allegations and the relevant document containing the allegations was supplied to him at the time of arrest.

The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision against a remand order passed in a case registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The revisionist also sought his release from judicial custody.

The Single Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani held, “In the considered opinion of this Court, once a written document containing the essential factual allegations forming the basis of the arrest is supplied to the arrested person, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing stands substantially complied with. The constitutional mandate does not require that the grounds of arrest must necessarily be recorded on a separate document distinct from the arrest memo.”

“The record indicates that the revisionist was informed of the allegations forming the basis of his arrest and the relevant document containing the essential factual allegations was supplied to him at the time of arrest. In such circumstances, the requirement of communication of the grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated”, it added.

Advocate Parikshit Saini represented the Revisionist while Advocate Piyush Garg represented the CBI.

Factual Background

The FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, Dehradun, in connection with alleged offences relating to criminal conspiracy and forgery punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the investigation, the revisionist came to be arrested by the investigating agency. After his arrest, the revisionist was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody on October 9, 2024, by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

The revisionist assailed the legality of the remand order primarily on the ground that at the time of his arrest, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing, which, according to him, constituted a violation of the safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the settled legal position laid down by the Apex Court with respect to communication of grounds of arrest.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest. “The object of this constitutional safeguard is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the basis of his arrest so that he may effectively exercise his right to seek legal remedies including bail and to prepare his defence”, it added.

The Bench reaffirmed that the fundamental requirement is that the arrested person must be informed of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest, and such information must be conveyed in a manner that enables him to understand the allegations against him. Explaining the difference between the “reasons for arrest” and the “grounds of arrest”, the Bench stated that the reasons for arrest are generally the statutory considerations which justify the necessity of arrest, whereas the grounds of arrest consist of the basic factual allegations which constitute the offence attributed to the arrested person.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the arrest of the revisionist was followed by the preparation of the arrest memo, wherein the essential facts constituting the alleged offence were recorded. The arrest memo indicated that the arrest was made in connection with the alleged commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further noticed that the arrest memo recorded the substance of the allegations forming the basis of the arrest and the said document was admittedly supplied to the revisionist at the time of arrest.

“The object of Article 22(1) is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the accusations forming the basis of the arrest. If such information is conveyed through the arrest memo or any contemporaneous document supplied to the accused, the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated”, it added.

Considering that the revisionist was informed of the allegations forming the basis of the arrest and was produced before the competent Magistrate in accordance with law, the Bench held that the remand order did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by the Court. Thus, confirming the legality of the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the Revision.

Cause Title: Ravi Kant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:1846)

Appearance

Revisionist: Advocates Parikshit Saini, Sukhwani Singh

CBI: Advocate Piyush Garg

Click here to read/download Order



Tags: