The Allahabad High Court has held that failure to inform an arrested individual of the grounds for arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and constitutes valid grounds for granting bail, even in cases where statutory limitations on bail apply.
Remand Order Quashed Over Procedural Lapse
A division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar delivered the judgment while hearing a writ petition filed by Manjeet Singh, who had been arrested in Rampur and remanded to judicial custody. The court set aside the December 26, 2024, remand order, observing that Singh was never informed of the reasons for his arrest, a mandatory constitutional safeguard.
The bench emphasized that it is the duty of the magistrate to ensure that all constitutional and legal safeguards—including Article 22(1)—are strictly followed before remanding an accused.
“When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist,” the court stated.
Grounds Must Be Clearly Communicated
The judgment further clarified that the grounds of arrest must be effectively communicated to the accused in a language they understand, and in a way that imparts clear knowledge of the facts and reasons for the arrest.
In this case, Singh was arrested based on an FIR dated February 15, 2024, under various IPC sections including cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and intimidation (Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 504, 506). However, the court noted that only a generic arrest memo was provided, without furnishing the specific reasons or legal basis for his detention.
Court Criticizes Use Of ‘Printed Remand Orders’
The court also expressed concern over the use of “printed remand orders” without judicial application of mind. It held that procedural lapses during remand—particularly the failure to communicate arrest grounds—are not mere technicalities but serious constitutional violations.
Petitioner Focused On Procedure, Not FIR Allegations
Advocate for the petitioner clarified that the case was not about the merits of the FIR, but about the illegality of the arrest process and the procedural flaws during the remand hearing. The counsel argued that the requirements under Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS were clearly not fulfilled.
In light of these findings, the High Court, in its April 9, 2025, ruling, quashed the arrest and set aside the remand order, reinforcing that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by procedural shortcuts.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
