Failure To Provide 'Grounds Of Arrest' Violates Article 22(1), S. 50 CrPC: Allahabad HC Directs UP DGP To Ensure Compliance Of S. 47 & 48 BNSS

In its order passed last week, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed that the right of an arrested person to be informed in writing of the grounds of arrest and furnishing of such written grounds to the arrested person is an imperative requirement of law.

To hold thus, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's recent rulings in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha v. State 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376 (Arrest & Remand illegal if accused not informed grounds of Arrest), Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844 (Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish the reasons of arrest to the accused in writing), Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169 (Arrest illegal if grounds of arrest not informed).

The bench also directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue a circular to all the Commissioners of Police/ SSPs/ SPs for necessary compliance of Section 50 and 50A (now Section 47 and 48 BNSS).

In the case before the HC, the petitioner claimed that, though he was supplied with the arrest memo at the time of arrest (containing the name of the petitioner and the place of arrest), it did not include any column specifying the grounds or reasons for his arrest.

It is argued that neither the reasons for the arrest nor the grounds were communicated in writing to the petitioner at the time of the arrest, as per the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory provisions under Section 50 CrPC.

For context, Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS) provides that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him the full particulars of the offence or other grounds for such arrest.

The petitioner also claimed that immediately after the arrest, he was produced before the remand Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody through a printed remand order, which did not mention whether any opportunity of hearing was granted to the accused/petitioner to contest his custodial detention.

Importantly, the petitioner submitted that Section 50A CrPC (now Section 48 BNSS), which requires informing a nominated person of the arrest and recording it, was not complied with in this case, and the Magistrate failed to ensure compliance with this mandatory provision.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench, at the outset, noted that not providing the grounds for arrest to the accused violated the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 50 CrPC.

The bench added that the right to access legal aid is a valuable right of the accused, who must be informed of their right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, and that these rights flow from Articles 21, 22(1) and 39A of the Constitution of India.

Furthermore, in its order, the Court also addressed the concerns regarding the non-application of the judicial mind by the remand magistrate in the case, as it observed thus:

“…admittedly, no such effort had been made by the learned Magistrate to ensure adequate legal aid to the accused petitioner and appropriate opportunity of hearing at the time judicial remand.. Even the arrest memo does not contain any column regarding grounds of arrest of the petitioner”

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned remand order and quashed the arrest of the accused.

Case title - Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 126