Whether Grounds Of Arrest Should Be Supplied Before Arrest? P&H High Court Chooses To Await Supreme Court's Decision

The Punjab and Haryana High Court remarked that when the Supreme Court itself has expressed doubts regarding the practical implementation of the judgment mandating supply of grounds of arrest, it would be appropriate to await the verdict of the Apex Court on the issue.Chief Justice Sheel Nagu said, "the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, has been doubted as regards it's application to the practicalities of life, by the Apex Court in the matter of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another, which has been heard and reserved for passing orders. In such circumstances, when the Apex Court has doubted the verdict of Arnesh Kumar (supra), it would be appropriate to await the verdict of Apex Court instead of applying the verdict of Arnesh Kumar."In Mihir Rajesh Shah case, the Apex Court observed that, "The question that we are called upon to answer is as to whether in each and every case, even arising out of IPC, would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest? Another question we are required to consider is, in exceptional cases, on account of exigencies, if it is not possible to furnish grounds of arrest either before or immediately after arrest, whether even in such cases the arrest is vitiated on account of non-compliance with Section 50 CrPC?." The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail in respect of offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-2023 and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.According to prosecution, a JCB machine indulging in illegal mining in river Satluj was intercepted by the police. The driver of the said JCB machine fled away from the spot. The JCB was found to be registered in the name of the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon a resolution of the Gram Panchayat submitted that the petitioner had been given contract for filling mud at the water tank of the village.He further disputed that JCB machine was extracting sand from the road and contended that the same was present in the village on the road to commence earth work which was allotted to the petitioner by way of resolution of Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 35 of BNSS-2023) to contend that reasons and grounds of arrest have not yet been communicated to the petitioner.After hearing the submissions, the judge opined that the grounds and reasons of arrest are to be communicated to the person at the time of arrest whereas in the present petition the petitioner merely apprehends arrest and has not yet been arrested.With respect to the disputed question of fact which has been raised by the counsel for petitioner, the Court said that "about the availability/non-availability of JCB machine at the relevant spot is concerned, the same is matter of evidence which is the domain of the trial Court and not of this Court while considering the prayer for bail."The Court casted serious doubt about the authenticity and genuineness of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat since the date of the said resolution is the same as the date of incident and the possibility of the said document being manufactured cannot be ruled out. Considering that humanity has suffered enough environmental damage especially to the river as well as to the environment at large, the judge said "offence of illegal mining in rivers needs to be taken in all seriousness despite less punishment prescribed under the said Act and therefore, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere in the matter." Accordingly, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was dismissed.Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jastej Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.Title: Gurdial Singh Kachure v. State of PunjabClick here to read/download the order

Whether Grounds Of Arrest Should Be Supplied Before Arrest? P&H High Court Chooses To Await Supreme Court's Decision

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags