Not informing about reason of arrest in violation of Art 22(1) will be ground for bail: Allahabad HC

Prayagraj: Informing the reason for arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and its violation will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on giving bail exist, the Allahabad High Court has ruled.

In the significant verdict, the High Court has set aside a December 25 remand order of a magistrate in Rampur, observing that the grounds of the arrest of the petitioner were not furnished to him.

The requirement of informing the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, it said, adding that it is the duty of the magistrate to ascertain its compliance and that of other mandatory safeguards.

"When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist," a division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar said.

The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language that he understands, the court said in its the order on a writ petition filed by Manjeet Singh.

An FIR was lodged against Singh on February 15, 2024, under IPC sections related to cheating, intimidation and breach of peace (420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 504, 506) and immediately after the arrest, the petitioner was produced before the remand magistrate on December 26, 2024 and sent to judicial custody through a "printed remand order".

The court observed, "The petitioner was not furnished with the grounds of arrest as mandated under section 47 BNSS, and only an arrest memo lacking such details was provided."

"When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made.

"When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist," it said.

The counsel for the petition submitted that the core issue involved in the petition is not the merits of the allegations mentioned in the FIR but the illegality in the process of arrest and procedural lapses during the remand proceedings.

He argued that neither the reasons for the arrest nor the grounds were communicated in writing to the petitioner at the time of arrest, as is required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Allowing the writ petition, the court in its order dated April 9, 2025, set aside the order dated December 26, 2024, passed by the remand magistrate and quashed the arrest of the petitioner.