Zulfikar And Another vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Kamla Shanker Pathak, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction in the nature of ceriorari quashing the remand order dated 12.07.2025 passed by Remand Magistrate Rampur along with all consequential orders in Case Crime No.326 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 127(2) B.N.S., P.S. Tanda, District Rampur. Further prayer for direction in the nature of mandamus to the State Police Authorities to release the petitioners forthwith.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are in jail since 11.07.2025 in pursuance of the remand order dated 12.07.2025 in connection with offence Case Crime No.326 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 127(2) B.N.S., P.S. Tanda Rampur. He further submitted that petitioners who are the real brothers have been falsely implicated due to political enmity. The petitioners have political background. Their parents are elected as Gram Pradhan many times. Petitioner no.1 was also elected as a B.D.C. member in panchayat election. When the petitioners were returning from Moradabad after visiting Allahabad High Court, in the mid way petitioners were arrested without disclosing the grounds of arrest on

11.07.2025. Thereafter the police entered the averment of the arrest of the petitioners in G.D. Entry 99 dated 11.07.2025. On the next day the police produced them before the Remand Magistrate. Remand Magistrate has passed impugned order without providing opportunity to the petitioners to 2 CRLP No. 16432 of 2025 engage legal practitioner or advocate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh, Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2025 @ SLP [Crl] No.1662 of 2025 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) LAWS (SC) 2024-5-46 as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Channa vs. State of U.P. (Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.934 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC Online SC 269, grounds of arrest are required to communicate the accused. Due to non compliance accused should be released. It is pertinent to mention para 21 (b) and (e) "b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made;"

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.3 vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioners have long criminal history of 23 cases. They are accused of rape which is serious offence agaisnt the society. The ground of arrest has already been communicated to the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2025 INSC 768. Relevant para-36 of the said judgment reads as under:- 3 CRLP No. 16432 of 2025 "36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough."

8. From perusal of the arrest memo, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it appears that name of arrested person Zulfikar, Case Crime No.326 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 127(2) B.N.S., statement of arrest have been mentioned for purpose of evidence. In the above case information was given to Fahim and the ground of arrest was of case crime no.326 of 2025. In the last para of the arrest memo it has been mentioned that accused was informed regarding ground of arrest and his rights. Search memo was also prepared on the spot in the presence of witnesses. The signature of the petitioner Zulfikar is on arrest memo and the search memo. The Remand Magistrate has made initial on the above document dated 12.07.2025. Other relevant facts have been mentioned in the arrest memo.

9. In the overall view of the matter more particularly having gone through the grounds of arrest we have reached the conclusion that grounds of arrest have been duly communicated to the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners admitted this fact that the bail application of the petitioners in case crime no.326 of 2025 has already been rejected from the concerned trial court and thereafter the petitioners moved bail application before this Court which is pending.

10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. September 1, 2025 Asha (Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.) ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Kamla Shanker Pathak, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction in the nature of ceriorari quashing the remand order dated 12.07.2025 passed by Remand Magistrate Rampur along with all consequential orders in Case Crime No.326 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 127(2) B.N.S., P.S. Tanda, District Rampur. Further prayer for direction in the nature of mandamus to the State Police Authorities to release the petitioners forthwith.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are in jail since 11.07.2025 in pursuance of the remand order dated 12.07.2025 in connection with offence Case Crime No.326 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 127(2) B.N.S., P.S. Tanda Rampur. He further submitted that petitioners who are the real brothers have been falsely implicated due to political enmity. The petitioners have political background. Their parents are elected as Gram Pradhan many times. Petitioner no.1 was also elected as a B.D.C. member in panchayat election. When the petitioners were returning from Moradabad after visiting Allahabad High Court, in the mid way petitioners were arrested without disclosing the grounds of arrest on

11.07.2025. Thereafter the police entered the averment of the arrest of the petitioners in G.D. Entry 99 dated 11.07.2025. On the next day the police produced them before the Remand Magistrate. Remand Magistrate has passed impugned order without providing opportunity to the petitioners to 2 CRLP No. 16432 of 2025 engage legal practitioner or advocate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh, Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2025 @ SLP [Crl] No.1662 of 2025 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) LAWS (SC) 2024-5-46 as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Channa vs. State of U.P. (Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.934 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC Online SC 269, grounds of arrest are required to communicate the accused. Due to non compliance accused should be released. It is pertinent to mention para 21 (b) and (e) "b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made;"

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.3 vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioners have long criminal history of 23 cases. They are accused of rape which is serious offence agaisnt the society. The ground of arrest has already been communicated to the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2025 INSC 768. Relevant para-36 of the said judgment reads as under:- 3 CRLP No. 16432 of 2025 "36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough."

8. From perusal of the arrest memo, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it appears that name of arrested person Zulfikar, Case Crime No.326 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3), 127(2) B.N.S., statement of arrest have been mentioned for purpose of evidence. In the above case information was given to Fahim and the ground of arrest was of case crime no.326 of 2025. In the last para of the arrest memo it has been mentioned that accused was informed regarding ground of arrest and his rights. Search memo was also prepared on the spot in the presence of witnesses. The signature of the petitioner Zulfikar is on arrest memo and the search memo. The Remand Magistrate has made initial on the above document dated 12.07.2025. Other relevant facts have been mentioned in the arrest memo.

9. In the overall view of the matter more particularly having gone through the grounds of arrest we have reached the conclusion that grounds of arrest have been duly communicated to the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners admitted this fact that the bail application of the petitioners in case crime no.326 of 2025 has already been rejected from the concerned trial court and thereafter the petitioners moved bail application before this Court which is pending.

10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. September 1, 2025 Asha (Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.) ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad