Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand and another

On the basis of those allegations, an FIR dated

20.01.2025 was registered as Case Crime No.0025 of 2025 at P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, Haridwar under Sections 2 316(5), 318(4), 316(6) & 61(2) of BNSS, 2023. The revisionist was arrested on 21.01.2025 and taken into custody.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned remand order primarily on the ground that the mandatory requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest was not complied with. He also submits that no written grounds of arrest were served upon the revisionist and neither he nor his family members were informed of the same.

5. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC 576, wherein it was held that the communication of grounds of arrest must be in writing to enable the accused to effectively exercise his right to bail and defend himself. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, has also been interpreted in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:- “38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for fundamental right such arrest. This being guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not 3 guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis for the officer's “reason to believe” that he/she is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.

43. The second reason as to why this would be the proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying such information being given to the arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] are placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were produced at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) PMLA.” compliance with claim due 4

6. The learned counsel also placed reliance in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, where the court reiterated that failure to communicate written grounds of arrest reduces the arrest illegal and vitiates subsequent proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has interpreted the concept of right to life and liberty in paras 20, 21, and

26. “20. The right to life and personal liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to the following observations made by this Court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 42] : (SCC p. 593, para 7) “7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.” Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with strictly.

21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. illegality validate

26. From a holistic reading of various judgments pertaining to the law of preventive detention including the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Harikisan [Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117] , wherein, the provisions of Article 22(5) of India have been interpreted, we find that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the grounds on which the liberty of a the Constitution of 5 citizen is curtailed, must be communicated in writing so as to enable him to seek remedial measures against the deprivation of liberty.”

7. The learned counsel for the revisionist further strengthened his submissions by placing reliance in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, (2025) 5 SCC 799, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has reiterated the decision passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) paras 14, 15, 16 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:-