Mohd. Tanveer v. State of Uttarakhand

FIR/Case Crime No. 620 of 2023 lodged on 26.07.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Police Station – Manglour), pending in the court of 1st Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar and also for immediate release of the applicant from judicial custody declaring the arrest of the applicant to be illegal in Criminal Case No. 365 of 2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the arrest and further remand of the applicant is bad in the eyes of law because the grounds of arrest have never been communicated to him in writing, as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 7 SCC, 576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) SCC Online SC 269. Learned counsel further submits the concerned Magistrate did not apply his mind before passing the impugned remand order; it is a cyclostyled order and has been passed in a cursory and mechanical manner using a printed format without indicating any application of judicial mind or reference to material evidence. Therefore, it is argued that the remand order may be set-aside and applicant may be released forthwith.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that the present applicant was arrested on 09.03.2025 on the basis of the cogent and credible material of evidence available on record against him as per the rules. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the name of the present applicant and one another co-accused came into light on the basis of the statement of Jubair Alam under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he fully supported the contents of FIR and 3 categorically stated that Alfa Communication/Limra Communication is his own shop.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) SCC Online SC 269, have reiterated the decision passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra). Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment are extracted hereinunder:- “14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 4

15. We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1. This Court has suggested that the proper and ideal course of communicating the grounds of arrest is to provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before a police officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of arrest have to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if the grounds of arrest are communicated in writing. Although there is no requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 are suggestions that merit consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may not be practicable to implement what is suggested. If the course, as suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non-compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance the rights of a person arrested with the interests of the society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply with the requirements of Article 22.

16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.”

6. What is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar case (supra) is the law of land. Reading the statutory provisions in context of the Constitutional Scheme 5 as envisaged under the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India makes it abundantly clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing. In the instant case, admittedly, the grounds of arrests have not been communicated to the applicant in writing.

7. Therefore, instant case, the arrest and subsequent remands are not in accordance with law. The impugned remand order dated 09.03.2025, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, present criminal misc. application is allowed.

9. The arrest and remand of the revisionist are invalid. As a consequence, the order dated 09.03.2025 and the subsequent remand orders passed by the Remand Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 365 of 2025, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Mohtaseen and Another (arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 620 of 2023 lodged on 26.07.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Police Station – Manglour), pending in the court of 1st Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby set-aside, qua the applicant and the applicant be released on bail. 6

10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant be released on bail, on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.09.2025