'Grounds Of Arrest' Must Contain All Basic Facts To Provide Opportunity To Accused To Oppose Remand & Seek Bail : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered today on May 15, distinguished between the 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'. The Court said that there is a significant difference between these two phrases. It explained that 'reasons of arrest' are formal and could apply generally to any person arrested of an offence. Elaborating, the Court also cited several of these...
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered today on May 15, distinguished between the 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'. The Court said that there is a significant difference between these two phrases.
It explained that 'reasons of arrest' are formal and could apply generally to any person arrested of an offence. Elaborating, the Court also cited several of these formal parameters that varied from preventing the accused person from committing any further offence to taking measures for proper investigation of the case. On the other hand, 'grounds of arrest' are personal and specific to the person arrested.
“These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.”
The Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held so while declaring NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha's arrest and his remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 as illegal. The Court rested its reasoning on the fact that the grounds of the arrest were not supplied to him in writing.
Under the scanner was a decision of the Delhi High Court upholding Purkayastha's arrest by the Delhi Police. Against this order, he had approached the Top Court.
The High Court, in its impugned order, had held that grounds of arrest were conveyed to the Purkayastha in writing through the arrest memo. However, the same was found as unacceptable by the Apex Court. In the judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, it was categorically stated that the arrest memo only had 'reasons for arrest' and not 'grounds of arrest'.
“Column No. 9 of the arrest memo (Annexure P-7) which is being reproduced hereinbelow simply sets out the 'reasons for arrest' which are formal in nature and can be generally attributed to any person arrested on accusation of an offence whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would be personal in nature and specific to the person arrested.,” the Court noted in its judgment.
The Court stressed on the significance of conveying the grounds of arrest to the accused person for enabling him to defend himself against custodial remand and seek bail.
"Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail."
“Thus, the 'grounds of arrest' would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the 'reasons of arrest' which are general in nature.,” the Court added.
It may be recalled that Purkayastha has been in custody since October 3 last year under the UAPA in a case over receiving Chinese funds to propagate anti-national propaganda. The arrest and remand having been declared invalid in the eyes of the law and set aside, the Court ordered the release of Purkayasatha. However, it said that the release would be subject to his furnishing the bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court since the chargesheet has been filed.
Case Details: Prabir Purkayastha v. State., Diary No, 42896 of 2023