Arrest Memo Containing Allegations Satisfies Article 22(1) Requirement Of Communicating Grounds Of Arrest: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest stands satisfied where the arrest memo, containing the essential factual allegations forming the basis of the arrest, is supplied to the accused. The Court observed that the mandate is to ensure meaningful communication of the substance of accusations, and not necessarily to provide a separate document distinct from the arrest memo. On this basis, the Court upheld the legality of the arrest and the consequential remand.

Justice Ashish Naithani dismissed a criminal revision challenging the remand order dated 09.10.2024 and seeking a declaration that the arrest was illegal and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.  

The revision arose from an FIR registered by the CBI in connection with offences relating to criminal conspiracy and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. The revisionist was arrested during investigation and remanded to judicial custody by the competent Magistrate.

Challenging the remand, the revisionist contended that the arrest was illegal on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing at the time of arrest, thereby violating constitutional safeguards.  

It was argued that communication of grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement and must be furnished in writing to enable the arrested person to understand the basis of the accusation and prepare a defence.

Reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, to contend that failure to provide written grounds renders the arrest illegal and vitiates subsequent remand.  

Conversely, the CBI contended that the revisionist had been duly informed of the allegations at the time of arrest and that the arrest memo, which was supplied to him, contained the essential facts constituting the offence.

It was further submitted that the constitutional requirement is satisfied if the arrested person is made aware of the basis of the arrest in a meaningful manner, and that no rigid format for communication is prescribed.  

The Court examined the scope of Article 22(1) and noted that the object of the provision is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the basis of the arrest so as to enable him to exercise legal remedies.

Referring to Pankaj Bansal, the Court acknowledged that furnishing written grounds of arrest is an important safeguard. However, relying on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it clarified that the requirement is satisfied if the basic factual allegations constituting the grounds of arrest are communicated in a meaningful manner.

Importantly, the Court distinguished between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest,” holding that the latter refers to the essential factual allegations forming the basis of the accusation.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the arrest memo in the present case contained the substance of the allegations and had been supplied to the revisionist at the time of arrest. In such circumstances, the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest stood substantially complied with.

“Once a written document containing the essential factual allegations forming the basis of the arrest is supplied to the arrested person, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing stands complied with. The constitutional mandate does not require that the grounds of arrest must necessarily be recorded on a separate document distinct from the arrest memo.

The object of Article 22(1) is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the accusations forming the basis of the arrest. If such information is conveyed through the arrest memo or any contemporaneous document supplied to the accused, the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated”, the Court held.

Consequently, finding no violation of constitutional safeguards, the High Court held that the arrest of the revisionist was lawful and that the remand order did not suffer from any illegality.

The criminal revision was accordingly dismissed.  

Case Name: Ravi Kant v Central Bureau of Investigation

Case No.: Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order