Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Must Happen Simultaneously With Issuance, Or As Part, Of The Arrest Memo: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court noted that the notice issued under Section 41-A of the CrPC was not served upon the Petitioner.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court observed that the communication of grounds of arrest to arrestee must happen simultaneously with the issuance, or as part, of the arrest memo.
The Court allowed the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the CrPC while setting aside the Order passed by the Trial Court, holding that the notice issued under Section 41-A of the CrPC was not served upon the Petitioner accused under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held, “In the opinion of this court, the sequitur to the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court is, that since grounds of arrest must exist before an arrest is made; and there must be a contemporaneous record of the grounds of arrest in the police diary or other document, there can possibly be no reason or justification for an investigating officer/arresting officer to not communicate to an arrestee the grounds of arrest in writing. This communication must happen simultaneously with the issuance, or as part, of the arrest memo. The purported mode of serving grounds of arrest as part of a remand application is therefore no compliance with the requirements of the law, since, inevitably, a remand application comes to be filed only much later when an arrestee is produced before the Magistrate. Contention No. 4 stands answered accordingly.”
Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG Sanjay Jain represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that the Petitioner assisted an Afghan national in emigrating to Spain based on a fraudulently obtained Indian passport, Aadhaar Card, and PAN Card, in exchange for money. The initial FIR was registered naming only one accused. The Petitioner was later arrested on after he appeared before the investigating officer in response to a notice purportedly issued under Section 41-A of the CrPC.
The Magistrate initially granted interim bail to the Petitioner, which was later made absolute. However, the State challenged these Orders through a Revision Petition, leading to the cancellation of bail by the Trial Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court clarified that an Order declining police custody remand is not an interlocutory order and is therefore amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC.
“At the risk of repetition, an order granting police custody remand can never be a final order, since police custody would always be granted for a certain defined period of time, which may be subject to extension. However, an order denying police custody remand, would be a final order, inasmuch as even if police custody is prayed-for and granted subsequently, it may not serve the purpose for which it was prayed-for initially,” the Court explained.
“In light of the above, this court is of the view that orders dated 21.03.2024 and 28.03.2024 declining police custody remand were not interlocutory orders and were therefore amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Court under section 397 Cr.P.C. and the revision petition was therefore maintainable. Contention No. 1 is answered accordingly,” the Bench clarified.
The Order by which bail was made absolute by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, was restored.
Consequently, the Court held, “As a consequence of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed on 02 counts : first, that the notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. was not served upon the petitioner; and second, that the grounds of arrest in writing were not served upon the petitioner as required in law.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Vikas Chawla @ Vicky v. The State NCT Of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2040)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John; Advocates Vishal Gosain, Arun Khatri, Sahil Khurana, Pravir Singh and Anushka Barua
Respondent: ASG Sanjay Jain; APP Aman Usman; Advocates Akhand Pratap Singh, Nishank Tripathi, Nishant Tripathi, Harshita Sukhija, Samriddhi, Palak Jain, Arjit Sharma, Nikunj Bindal and Charu Sharma
