# Shivam Chaurasiya v. State of U. P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 97
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-10
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 47 of 2026
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin, Mrs. Babita Rani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivam-chaurasiya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54856
- **Pages:** 19

## Text

_Characters 0–39,636 of 60,726. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39636 for what follows._

2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
97

16. We find no contradiction in the law as laid down in Modern Construction pronounced
after consideration of the law and precedents requiring reconsideration in view of any conflict with
Joginder Tuli . Modern Construction lays down the correct law. We answer the reference
accordingly."

21. It is well settled that if the Court is not having a jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, the
plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and it has to be accordingly returned to the
plaintiff for presentation to the competent court of jurisdiction.

22. It is also apparent that under Explanation to Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC, the appellate or
revisional court can also direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint
for presentation before the competent court of jurisdiction.

23. In view of this, the trial court instead of rejecting the plaint, should have returned it to the
plaintiff for presentation to the competent court of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

25. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025 insofar as the
conclusion of the trial court that it has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, is
affirmed but the decision of rejecting the plaint is set aside. The original suit No.244 of 2018 is
restored to its original number and the trial court is hereby directed to return the original plaint to
the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, for presentation before the
competent Court of jurisdiction.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 97
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 47 of 2026

Shivam Chaurasiya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the reasons and grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner and it cannot be said that the
arrest is illegal and unjustified from any angle and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, there
being no infirmity in the arrest of the petitioner.

Head Notes
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21, 22(1) & 226; The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023- Section 36- Perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate would indicate
that the learned Magistrate though has considered the material available on record yet he has
failed to consider that the grounds/reasons of arrest, as detailed separately, do not form part of
the arrest memo as they do not find mention anywhere in the arrest memo and further also do
not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 36 of B.N.S.S, 2023 and thus it is apparent
that the remand order has been passed in an absolutely mechanical manner and consequently,
even if the remand has been given by the learned Magistrate yet the instant writ petition in the
nature of habeas corpus would be maintainable.

Held- A writ in the nature of habeas corpus is issued declaring the arrest of the petitioner as illegal. The
remand order dated 29.01.2026 being consequential to the illegal arrest, is also set aside. The petitioner be
set free provided he is not wanted in any other case- Petition allowed. (E-15)
(Para 30, 33 & 34)

Case Law Cited
Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra- 2026 (1) SCC 500; Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation
Agency (2022) 13 SCC 542; Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Rahul Modi-MANU/SC/0420/2019; Nenavath
Bujji Vs. State of Telengana and ors- 2024 (17) SCC 294;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Habeas corpus: Detention; Remand order passed in an absolutely mechanical manner; Grounds/reasons of
arrest, , do not form part of the arrest memo ;Mandatory provisions of Section 36 of B.N.S.S

Case Arising From
Praying for a writ of habeas corpus for the petitioner's arrest and detention to be declared illegal and for
setting aside the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Pratapgarh and for
quashing of the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Skand Bajpai, Abhyudaya Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Babita Rani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Skand Bajpai and Sri Abhyudaya Mishra, learned counsels for the petitioner as
well as Shri Shiv Nath Tilahari & Shri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocates
appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 5. Learned AGA states that he is also accepting
notice for the respondents no. 7 to 9. Considering the question of law involved in the instant
petition, notice to respondent no. 6 is dispensed with.

2. Learned counsels for the petitioner pray for adding the words "Writ of Habeas Corpus" in
prayer Clause-A.

3. To the aforesaid prayer, learned AGAs have no objection.
2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
99

4. Accordingly, the prayer as made by the learned counsels for the petitioner is allowed. Let
the learned counsels for the petitioner add " Writ of Habeas Corpus" in prayer Clause -A during the
course of the day.

5. Considering the legal issue involved in the instant petition and the respondents having
produced the complete records including the case diary before this Court as such, there would not
be any requirement of filing of counter affidavit.

6. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Union of India and others vs. Shiv Raj and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 564 wherein it has
been held as under:-

"in a case where on the basis of submissions advanced in the court on behalf of the parties
the court summons the original record to find out the truth, pleadings remain insignificant".

7. Instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed praying for the following
main reliefs:-

"(A). Allow this petition, declare the petitioner's arrest & detention illegal, pass an order
(s) setting aside the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by Hon'ble Court of learned Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, U.P. in relation to Case Crime No. 15/2026 registered at Police Station-
Kandhai, Pratapgarh, U.P. alleging offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 87, 64 (1), 351 (3)
of B.N.S and 3 & 4 POCSO Act [Annexure-5 from page 49 to 53] and direct the Respondent Nos.
1, 2, 3 & 4 to release the petitioner forthwith by issuance of an order or direction in the nature of
writ of Habeas Corpus.

(B). Allow this petition, declare the petitioner's arrest illegal, pass an order (s) quashing
the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026 drawn regarding Case Crime No. 15/2026 registered at Police
Station- Kandhai, Pratapgarh, U.P. alleging offences punishable under sections 137 (2), 87, 64 (1),
351 (3) B.N.S and 3 & 2 POCSO Act [Annexure-2 from page 34 to 44] and direct Respondent Nos.
1, 2, 3 & 4 to release the petitioner forthwith.

(C). Pass an order (s) or direction (s) in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the
1st respondent to pay to the petitioner Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) as compensation on
account of illegal deprivation of his liberty within such time as may be deemed fit and proper by
this Court.

(D). Pass an order (s) or direction(s) directing the 1st and/ or 2nd respondent to fairly
conduct disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings against the erring police officials for
illegally depriving the petitioner of his liberty within such time as may be deemed fit and proper by
this Hon'ble Court."

8. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case set forth by the learned counsels for the petitioner is
that the petitioner and the respondent no. 5/ alleged victim, were dating each other but her family
was against the said relationship. On 21.01.2026, the First Information Report dated 21.01.2026
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registered as Case Crime No. 15 of 2026 under Sections 137 (2), 87, 64 (1), 351 (3) of Bhartiya
Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 3 & 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police
Station- Kandhai District- Pratapgarh was lodged against the petitioner, a copy of which is
annexure 1 to the writ petition.

9. It is contended that from a perusal of the First Information Report it emerges that the
petitioner had persuaded the daughter of the complainant to establish physical relations by taking a
room on rent and had thereafter established physical relations and left her. Subsequently, the
petitioner is said to have blackmailed the complainant's daughter by threatening to circulate her
video on internet. Certain other allegations have also been levelled in the First Information Report.

10. On the basis of the allegations as levelled and the First Information Report being lodged,
the petitioner was asked to reach the Police Station- Narangpur on 28.01.2026. Upon the petitioner
having reached the police station, he was detained in the police post. At 07:30 PM, a Sub-Inspector
with two constables came out of the chowki and the petitioner was asked to sign an arrest memo.
They made the petitioner to sit in a private car. Thereafter the petitioner's brother who was in
another car was asked to get down from the car and go home. At about 09:30 PM, the petitioner's
arrest was informed to his mother over telephone. The arrest memo dated 28.01.2026, a copy of
which is annexure 2 to the writ petition was prepared but the said memo neither contained the
reasons for arrest, nor the grounds for arrest except indicating about the aforesaid case crime
number being lodged. It is also contended that on 29.01.2026, the authorities produced the
petitioner before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh who vide order dated
29.01.2026, a copy of which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition, granted fourteen days judicial
custody of the petitioner and sent him to the district jail. It is contended that the learned Special
Judge did not even advert to the evidence/material placed by the Investigating Officer and the
remand order was passed in the cursory manner.

11. Praying for a writ of habeas corpus for the petitioner's arrest and detention to be declared
illegal and for setting aside the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge,
POCSO, Pratapgarh and for quashing of the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026, the instant writ petition
has been filed

12. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the arrest memo which has been
given to the petitioner does not contain any reasons or grounds for arrest and consequently, the
same is patently violative and in the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir
Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra- 2026 (1) SCC 500 which thus vitiates the arrest of the
petitioner.

13. So far as the role of the learned Magistrate to consider various aspect of the matter while
granting remand, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the Division Bench judgment
of this Court at Allahabad in the case of Manjeet Singh Vs State of U.P and Ors, reported in
2025 SCC Online All 2119.

14. On the other hand, Sri Shiv Nath Tilahari & Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGAs take a
preliminary objection on the basis of the case diary that the statement of the victim has been
2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
101
recorded under Sections 180 & 183 of B.N.S.S, 2023, per which the offence against the petitioner
is clearly made out and as this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India as such this Court may not exercise the said jurisdiction once an offence has been
committed by the petitioner. Learned AGAs also argue that the radiological examination has been
conducted per which the age of the victim has been determined to be seventeen years apart the
educational records from which it emerges that the victim is a minor and that the reasons and
grounds of arrest were given to the petitioner in the arrest memo which duly bear his signatures
along with the signatures of the witnesess.

15. Learned AGAs have also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases
of Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Rahul Modi-MANU/SC/0420/2019 to argue that in
habeas corpus proceedings, a Court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at
the time of return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings meaning thereby that
as subsequent to the arrest of the petitioner, the remand has been granted by the learned Magistrate
as such, any illegality which might have occurred at the time of arrest would get obliterated on
account of the remand having been granted by the learned Magistrate and as now the petitioner is in
custody on account of the remand order as such, the petition in the nature of habeas corpus would
not be maintainable.

16. Further, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Kashi Reddy Upendra Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, reported in
MANU/SC/0773/2025, contending that as the reasons and grounds of arrest were in fact supplied
to the petitioner consequently, it cannot be said that the arrest is illegal and unjustified from any
angle and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, there being no infirmity in the arrest of
the petitioner.

17. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the
records.

18. From a perusal of records it emerges that on account of the First Information Report dated
21.01.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 15 of 2026 having been lodged against the petitioner, the
petitioner has been arrested on 28.01.2026 and the arrest memo was duly supplied to him. The
remand has also been given by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.01.2026 and
consequently, the petitioner is in custody.

19. The Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) after exhaustively considering
the earlier judgments with regard to necessity for supply of grounds of arrest, has held as under:-

"28. It was said that any breach of the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22
would vitiate the lawfulness of arrest and subsequent remand and entitle the arrested person to be
set at liberty. The relevant portion in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] is reproduced herein: (SCC pp. 276 & 278,
paras 19-21 & 28-29)
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for
allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other
offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in
writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a
matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested
person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the
only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody
remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

20. The right to life and personal liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right
guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon
this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard,
we may refer to the following observations made by this Court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [Roy
V.D. v. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 42] : (SCC p. 593, para 7)

"7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be
interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and
applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution, Article 21 guarantees protection of life and
personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens."

Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22
of the Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with strictly.

21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamentalright would vitiate the process of
arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the
illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of
initial police custody remand to the accused.

28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional
provisions require that the 'grounds' of 'arrest' or 'detention', as the case may be, must be
communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as
made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement
to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.

29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the
grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an
offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of
the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance
of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention
being rendered illegal, as the case may be"
2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
103

31. The relevant portion of Vihaan Kumar [Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5
SCC 799 : (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 762] is reproduced herein: (SCC pp. 814-15, 817 & 822-23, paras
15, 21 & 40-42)

"15. The view taken in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC
576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] was reiterated by this Court in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] . In paras 28 and
29, this Court held thus: (Prabir Purkayastha case [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] , SCC p. 278)

"28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional
provisions require that the "grounds" of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be
communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as
made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement
to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.

29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the
grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an
offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of
the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance
of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention
being rendered illegal, as the case may be."

21. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now
a charge-sheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant
to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge-sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great
respect to the learned Senior Counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1)
of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1),
the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of
remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge-sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest
which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of
India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.

N. Kotiswar Singh, J. (supplementing)I had the benefit of going through the draft
opinion of my esteemed Brother Hon'ble Mr Justice Abhay S. Oka and I concur with the analysis
and conclusions arrived at. However, I wish to add a few lines in supplement to the aforesaid
opinion.

41. The issue on the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest to the person
arrested, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which has also been
incorporated in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Section 19 thereof has been
succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrest to the person arrested in writing has been explained in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v.
Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] so as to be meaningful to serve the
intended purpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573] . The said constitutional mandate has
been incorporated in the statute under Section 50CrPC (Section 47 of the BNSS). It may also be
noted that the aforesaid provision of requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest, to be
purposeful, is also required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other persons of
the accused as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information as provided under Section 50-ACrPC. As may be noted, this is in the addition of the
requirement as provided under Section 50(1)CrPC.

42. The purpose of inserting Section 50-ACrPC, making it obligatory on the person
making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the
arrested person, is to ensure that they would be able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure
the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his
detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release,
which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of
engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest.
Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his
relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know
the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives,
friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising
the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence,
the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested
person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by
the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and
effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
(emphasis in original)

35. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC
260 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172] , this Court while framing guidelines regarding the rights of an arrested
person has observed that the existence of a power to arrest and the justification to use such power
are two different aspects. The person making arrest must be able to justify the arrest with reasons
apart from his power to do so. Arrest of a person can cause irreversible damage to his reputation in
the society as well as his self-esteem, therefore, arrest cannot be made in a routine manner. The
police officer making an arrest must be cautious while arresting a person and ought to satisfy
himself after a reasonable investigation to justify the person's complicity and also the effect as well
as the need of arrest. This Court has further observed that except in heinous offences, arrest must be
avoided.

37. The mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is unambiguous
and clear in nature, it provides that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as
soon as they can be. It further provides that the arrested person has the right to defend himself by
consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This constitutional mandate has been effectuated by
2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
the legislature in Section 50CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) which provides that an arrested
person shall be forthwith communicated with the grounds of his arrest.

41. The purpose of securing legal assistance before remand is not merely symbolic, but it
is to ensure that the accused is afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the prayer for police
custody and to place before the Magistrate any circumstances that may warrant refusal or limitation
of such custody. If the accused is not represented through a counsel, he/she should be made aware
that he/she is entitled for legal aid. As far as possible, it shall be ensured that every accused person
is represented by an advocate, if he is not able to avail such assistance, he should be given free
legal aid. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok v. State of U.P. [Ashok v. State of U.P.,
(2025) 2 SCC 381 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 744] held that an accused who is not represented by an
advocate is entitled for free legal aid at all material stages starting from remand.

43. Section 167CrPC (now Section 187 of BNSS 2023) while dealing with remand
provides for a positive mandate on the police officer to forward the accused to the Magistrate
before expiry of such period as fixed under Section 57CrPC (now Section 58 of BNSS 2023) when
investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. It further mandates that the Magistrate to
not authorize the detention of accused unless he is physically produced before him. The purpose of
this provision mandating the production of accused before Magistrate for exercise of the power of
remanding him to custody under this section is with the dual purpose. First, ensuring physical
presence of the accused and second to afford him an opportunity to be heard. The intent of this
provision is not merely to be heard at the stage of remand but to be represented by the counsel of
his choice. Thereafter, the duty is cast upon the Magistrate to apply his judicial mind to the material
produced before him, hear the accused or the counsel representing him to determine whether the
accused should be remanded to police custody or should be detained at all within the parameters
prescribed in Section 167CrPC (Section 187 of BNSS 2023). The Magistrate is not acting as a post
office simply putting a stamp of approval to the remand papers as presented before him. In
Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat [Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1
SCC 314 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 475] this Court held that it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate
to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand.

45. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India shows that the intent of
the Constitution makers while incorporating the provisions was not to create any exceptional
circumstances, instead it reads as 'No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, it casts a mandatory
unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with
the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of
his choice. This mandate of Article 22(1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it
explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded
in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the Penal Code, 1860 (now
BNS 2023).

46. The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of
and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in Part III of the Constitution under the
head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon
as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.

48. As mentioned above, it has been held while dealing with the mode of communicating
the grounds of arrest so as to serve the intended purpose of the constitutional mandate that the
language used in Articles 22(1) and 22(5) regarding communication of the grounds is identical and
therefore the interpretation of Article 22(5) shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1). The grounds of
arrest must be furnished in writing, in order to attend the true intended purpose of Article 22(1).
Reference at this stage may be made to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Harikisan
[Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117] wherein while dealing with Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India in the context of the right of a detainee to be made aware of the
grounds of arrest, it has been held that the same should be furnished in a language which he can
understand and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person.

50. Further, the above judgment has been reiterated and followed by this Court in
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India [Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2
SCC 427 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 463 : (1982) 52 Comp Cas 543] wherein it has been reaffirmed that
grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu in writing in a language which he
understands.

51. On perusal of the above two judgments, it turns out that mere communication of the
grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional
mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a
language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the
personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
The objective of the constitutional mandate is to place the person in a position to comprehend the
basis of the allegations levelled against him and it can only be realised when the grounds are
furnished in a language understood by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise his rights
effectively.

52. From the catena of decisions discussed above, the legal position which emerges is
that the constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere
procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form of fundamental rights. The intent
and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. If the
provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing
personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse.

55. This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the intended objective of the constitutional
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest must be informed to the
arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of
such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands.
2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
107

57. The second issue which requires consideration is when grounds of arrest are not
furnished either prior to arrest or immediately after the arrest, would it vitiate the arrest for noncompliance of the provisions of Section 50CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) irrespective of
certain exigencies where furnishing such grounds would not be possible forthwith.

58. It is by now settled that if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the arrestee in
writing, this non-compliance will result in breach of the constitutional and statutory safeguards
hence rendering the arrest and remand illegal and the person will be entitled to be set at liberty. The
statute is silent with regard to the mode, nature or the time and stage at which the grounds of arrest
has to be communicated. Article 22 says as soon as may be which would obviously not mean
prior to arrest but can be on arrest or thereafter. The indication is as early as it can be conveyed.
There may be situations wherein it may not be practically possible to supply such grounds of arrest
to the arrested person at the time of his arrest or immediately.

62. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are already in possession of
documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be
furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences
against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in
writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person
making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy
of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no
event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand
proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in
supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the Magistrate.

64. In view of the above, we hold with regard to the second issue that non-supply of
grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate
such arrest on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50CrPC (now Section
47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and
in any case two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand
proceedings.

68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating
written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view,
would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under
Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would
avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline
therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."

20. From a perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah
(supra) it clearly emerges that the Apex Court has categorically held, after considering Article 22
(1) of the Constitution of India, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed of the grounds of such arrest meaning thereby that it casts a mandatory and
unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest.
Supply of grounds of arrest have also been held to be grounded in fundamental right of life and
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that requirement of informing the
arrested person the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding
constitutional safeguard which has been included in Part III of the Constitution under the head of
"Fundamental Rights".

21. The Apex Court has further held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing in
order to attend the true intended purpose of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and have also
held that supply of grounds of arrest is the Constitutional mandate. Thereafter, the Apex Court has
held that if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the arrestee in writing, the non compliance
will result in breach of constitutional and statutory safeguards rendering the arrest and remand
illegal and the person will be entitled to be set at liberty. The aforesaid procedure has been directed
to govern all arrest henceforth i.e with effect from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court
which is dated 06.11.2025.

22. Thus, considering the aforesaid judgment it is apparent that the grounds of arrest are
mandatorily to be given to the arrestee.

23. In the instant case, as per prosecution the petitioner has been given the grounds and
reasons of arrest as per the arrest memo dated 28.01.2026 which has been annexed with the writ
petition. However, Columns 12 & 13 of the arrest memo, which pertain to the reasons of arrest and
grounds of arrest, only indicate about Case Crime No. 15 of 2026 having been lodged against the
petitioner under Sections 137 (2), 87, 64 (1), 351 (3) of B.N.S, 2023 and Section 3/4 of the POCSO
Act, 2012. No grounds or reasons emerge from the arrest memo as to why the petitioner has been
arrested. The matter may have ended there but for the fact that the learned AGAs have also
produced the copy of reasons for arrest duly bearing the signatures of the petitioner. The said
grounds of arrest duly finds placed and noted in the case diary no. CD 8 dated 28.01.2026. For the
sake of convenience, the arrest memo and the grounds of arrest, given separately, are reproduced
below:-

"प्रत्येक अभियुक्त के भिये अिग-अिग
भगरफ्तारी मेमो

(प्र०सू०रर० सं० 15/2026 कदनांक 21.01.26
धारा 137(2), 87, 64(1), 351(3) BNS व 3/4 पॉक्सो एक्ट 2012
थाना कन्धई जनपद प्रतापगढ़ )

(िारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संभिता, 2023 की धारा 36 के अनुसार)
(माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायािय के भनर्देशानुसार)

1
कगरफ्तारी व्यकक्त का नाम, उपनाम तथा उम्र
कशवम चौरकसया उफद वुन्नी उम्र करीब 20 वर्द
2
कगरफ्तारी व्यकक्त के माता/कपता का नाम
अशोक कुमार चौरकसया
3
कगरफ्तारी व्यकक्त का मो०नं०/आधार सं०
मो० 7570836946, 7570883528, 9621015139
2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P.