Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Held: There is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’ – The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer – These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused – Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on Prabir Purkayastha v.

State (NCT of Delhi) 670 [2024] 6 S.C.R. which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail – Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature. [Para 49] Constitution of India – Article 141 – Plea of the respondent that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [2023] 12 SCR 714 relied upon by the accused- appellant would not apply to the proceedings of remand made on 4.10.2023 as the appellant was remanded to police custody on 4.10.2023 whereas the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was uploaded on the website of Supreme Court in the late hours of 4.10.2023 and hence, the arresting officer could not be expected to ensure compliance of the directions given therein and thus, the alleged inaction of the IO in furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant cannot be called into question as the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was uploaded and brought in public domain after the remand order had been passed: Held: Said plea is misconceived – Indisputably, the appellant was remanded to police custody on 4.10.2023 whereas the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal was delivered on 3.10.2023 – Merely on a conjectural submission regarding the late uploading of the judgment, the respondent cannot be permitted to argue that the ratio of Pankaj Bansal would not apply to the present case – Once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. [Para 45] Constitution of India – Article 22(5), 22(1) – Respondent referring to language of Article 22(5) contended that even in a case of preventive detention, the Constitutional scheme does not require that the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed should be communicated to the detenue in writing: Held: Said submission is ex facie untenable in eyes of law – It has been the consistent view of this Court that the grounds on Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 6 S.C.R. 671 which the liberty of a citizen is curtailed, must be communicated in writing so as to enable him to seek remedial measures against the deprivation of liberty – The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical – Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the ‘grounds’ of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be communicated in writing – Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench in Harikisan v.

State of Maharashtra and Others [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 918 while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. [Paras 27-29] Case Law Cited Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 918 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 – followed.