The Allahabad High Court last week strongly criticised the police's approach to constitutional safeguards, observing that they have "traditionally paid scant regard" to the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and often fail to appreciate the significance of fundamental rights when exercising the power of arrest.

Referring to a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments which make it mandatory to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused, the Court observed thus:

"The man in uniform, by his training, duties and sometimes compulsion, thinks small of rights, including the fundamental rights. He looks sometimes with his scorn at judgments enforcing these rights and enumerating principles that seeks to realize the fundamental right to liberty".

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena further remarked that a policeman, who sees every suspect and accused as guilty, is almost inclined to think that he understands the truth of the matter better than anyone, and, "most certainly than a Judge sitting in a Court far away from the scene or the transaction of crime".

According to the Court, police officers "never understand that there are always two sides to a fact, a thing or an allegation regarding an offence" and remain "partisan looking at one side alone".

It further observed that police training bereft of knowledge of the law deprives the policeman of the forensic eye to understand legal implications, resulting in a continuing "tug of war" between judicial orders safeguarding individual liberty and "dogged breaches by the Police".

The Division Bench made these observations while quashing the remand and arrest of the petitioner, noting that he was never informed of the grounds of his arrest as mandated under Article 22(1).

Case in Brief

The bench was dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by Rakesh, who challenged the legality of his arrest in a case registered under Sections 87, 127(4), 64(1) and 143(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

At the outset, the Court clarified that the petition did not concern the merits of the criminal case or the petitioner's entitlement to bail. The only issue before it was whether his arrest complied with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution read with the provisions under the BNS.

It observed that if an arrest is illegal because the constitutional safeguard has been violated, the accused is entitled to restoration of liberty "no matter what the charge is or the gravity thereof."

The petitioner alleged that although he was arrested on April 20, 2025, he was never informed of the grounds of his arrest, either orally or in writing.

High Court's observations

While the State relied upon the arrest memo and a General Diary entry to contend that the requirement had been complied with, the High Court found that neither document disclosed the factual grounds on which the petitioner had been arrested.

Examining the arrest memo, the Court found that the column meant to record the grounds of arrest merely reproduced standard printed clauses stating that the arrest was necessary for investigation, to prevent tampering with evidence, to prevent the commission of further offences, and to secure the accused's presence before the court.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that there is a clear distinction between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest".

"This arrest memo does not carry grounds of arrest, but reasons of arrest. The reasons have already been distinguished from grounds by the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha. There is absolutely no ground mentioned in the memo of arrest", the Court observed.

The Bench further noted that the General Diary entry merely recorded the penal provisions invoked and stated that Supreme Court guidelines had been complied with, but it contained no contemporaneous disclosure of the factual grounds of arrest.

As a result, the bench noted, the petitioner was disabled from exercising his right under Article 22(1) because he never knew on what precise grounds and facts he had been taken into custody.

The Court also noted that although the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah has now directed that grounds of arrest be furnished at the time of arrest or, in any event, at least two hours before production before the Magistrate, that direction would operate prospectively and hence, it was not applicable to the present matter.

Nevertheless, the bench clarified, even as per the judgments prevailing at the time of the petitioner's arrest, he ought to have been informed of the grounds either at the time of arrest or within a reasonable period thereafter, which admittedly never happened.

The Bench also criticized the Remand Magistrate for mechanically authorising judicial custody through a printed proforma without verifying compliance with Article 22(1).

Calling it a 'classical' case of a remand order made by the Judicial Magistrate, being rendered illegal due to the failure to ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the Court held that the Remand Magistrate had failed to verify compliance with the constitutional safeguard before authorising judicial custody.

Against this backdrop, allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the remand order and directed the petitioner's release upon furnishing bonds under Section 91 BNSS.

It further directed the Sessions Judge, Sambhal, to ensure that Magistrates under his administrative control do not authorise police or judicial remand mechanically on printed proformas and do not remand an accused without first ascertaining that the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest has been complied with.

Advocates Dileep Kumar Shukla and Shikhar Neelkanth appeared for the petitioner

Also from the order : Does Rejection Of Bail Bar Subsequent Challenge To Legality Of Arrest? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case title - Rakesh vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525

Click Here To Read/Download Order