The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has observed that the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the disclosure of arrest grounds under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) do not extend to offences under other statutes, except in cases of preventive detention.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while dismissing a petition challenging an arrest and remand order in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery.
The petitioner, John Moses alias Madan Kumar, faced multiple charges related to creating fraudulent documents and using them to secure court orders for evicting slum dwellers in Bengaluru's Sivanchetti Gardens area. The Crime Investigation Department (CID) later invoked provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act (KCOKA) against him.
The petitioner cited Supreme Court rulings in the Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Arvind Kejriwal cases to argue that the notice of arrest was insufficient and that the grounds for arrest must be explicitly communicated. He further submitted that these rulings applied prospectively, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Ashok Naik, the special public prosecutor for the CID, countered that mere intimation of arrest was sufficient in this case. BN Jagadeesh, Additional State Public Prosecutor, assisted the court, emphasising that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were not relevant to the case's facts.
After reviewing the judgments, the court noted that the Supreme Court's mandate on the disclosure of arrest grounds under the UAPA and PMLA stems from the stringent nature of those statutes, which restrict bail and place the burden of proving innocence on the accused.
Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted that extending similar requirements to all cognizable offences could lead to significant legal complications.
“The police stations in the country are close to 20,000, arrests happen day in and day out. If grounds of arrest is to be informed, as is held by the Apex Court in the Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkaystha and Arvind Kejriwal cases, in every arrest on any cognizable offence, it would undoubtedly open a Pandora’s box, of interpretation of what could be the grounds of arrest, and mushroom huge litigation before the constitutional courts,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court clarified that Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which stipulates informing the accused of their arrest grounds, applies in such cases. “It is made clear that Section 50 of the CrPC, must necessarily be followed and information or grounds of arrest as is done in the case at hand must necessarily be indicated to every accused who is to be arrested under the general law. If the arrest is under PMLA or UAPA, what the Apex Court in the aforequoted judgments laid down would straight away become applicable and non-divulgence would vitiate the arrest,” the court said.