While asking the Police Officials to ensure necessary compliance of Sections 47, 48 of BNSS, the Allahabad High Court has held that not communicating reasons and grounds for arrest in writing to the accused at the time of arrest violates the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the CrPC.

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of an appropriate direction for quashing the impugned remand order passed by the Magistrate in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 504, 506 IPC. A plea was also raised to direct the release of the petitioner on personal bond in light of the ongoing investigation.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar and Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi said, “Upon examination of the record and instructions, we have no hesitation in holding that neither the reasons nor grounds for arrest were communicated in writing to the petitioner at the time of arrest, thereby violating the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 50 Cr.P.C. The arrest memo and remand orders on record (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) reflect that only a printed format memo was provided, without mentioning grounds of arrest.”

Advocate Praveen Shrivastav represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that the arrest memo was a printed proforma, which did not contain any column specifying the grounds or reasons for arrest. It was submitted that neither the reasons for the arrest nor the grounds were communicated in writing to the petitioner at the time of arrest, as per the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions under Section 50 CrPC. It was further argued that no opportunity of hearing or no opportunity to the petitioner was given for defending his custodial remand.

Factual Background

The Bench found that the petitioner was not furnished with the grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 50 Cr.P.C. (now Section 47 BNSS), and only an arrest memo lacking such details was provided.

“...the right to access legal aid is a valuable right of the accused, who must be informed of his right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.In case the accused is unable to engage counsel, the State must provide legal aid. These rights flow from Articles 21, 22(1) and 39A of the Constitution of India. Adequate legal aid to the accused at State expenses is also enshrined in Section 304 Cr.P.C. (now Section 341 BNSS)”, the Bench said.

It was further noticed that the Magistrate made no effort to ensure adequate legal aid to the accused petitioner and appropriate opportunity of hearing at the time of judicial remand. Even the arrest memo did not contain any column regarding the grounds of arrest of the petitioner. “This very issue is primarily the bone of contention between the parties in the instant matter. Accordingly, this, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order”, the Bench said.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Bench quashed the arrest of the petitioner.

“Let the order be communicated to Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh through Registrar General of this Court and accordingly, a circular be issued to all the Commissioners of Police/ SSPs/ SPs for necessary compliance of Section 50 and 50A (now Section 47 and 48 BNSS) in the light of the observations made above”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:52089-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Praveen Shrivastav

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order










Allahabad High CourtJustice Prashant KumarJustice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.