Case Title:
Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh
Date Of Order :
25 March, 2025
Bench:
Rajesh Bindal
Parties:
Appellant-Ashish Kakkar,Respondent-Union Territory Of Chandigarh
FACTS
The appellant was arrested on 30.12.2024 in connection with FIR No. 33/2022 registered under Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and remanded to police custody for a period of 3 days.
SUBJECT
The appeal originated from the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision dated 30 January,2025 where the HC dismissed the petition holding the view that there’s no illegality in the impugned remand order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the learned magistrate.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Honourable High Court , Punjab & Haryana filed the present appeal challenging both his arrest and the remand order dated 30.12.2024 on three grounds, namely
- There’s a clear non-compliance of the mandate prescribed under Section -41A of CrPC.
- The appellant was not heard at the time of remand.
- The grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 50 of the Code have not been furnished to the appellant as against the mere arrest memo.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 41A of Code Of Criminal Procedure,1978 impose an obligation on the Police Officers that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, police shall issue a notice directing such person to appear before him against whom credible information has been received or reasonable compliant has been made regarding commission of a cognizable offence punishable with less than 7yrs of Imprisonment with or without fine . The notice directs the person to appear before the police officer or at another place specified in the notice. If the person complies with the notice, they will not be arrested.
- Section 50 of Code Of Criminal Procedure,1978 makes it mandatory that when arresting someone without a warrant, a police officer or other person must immediately communicate the following to the arrested person:
*Full particulars of the offense: The specific details of the crime for which the arrest is made.
*Other grounds for arrest: Any other reasons or circumstances that led to the arrest.
*Right to bail (for non-bailable offenses): The person arrested must be informed that they are entitled to be released on bail and that they may arrange for sureties on their behalf.
This provision is designed to protect individual rights and ensure transparency in the arrest process. It ensures that individuals are aware of the reasons for their detention and can exercise their right to bail if applicable. The requirement under Section 50 is rooted in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which protects individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The honourable bench was inclined to consider only the last issue raised by the appellant with respect to the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.
- Upon perusing all the facts & circumstances, court could see that what had been provided to the appellant was only an arrest memo in the prescribed format, which is meant to be given to the appellant by way of an intimation.
- It had been filled up with the name of the appellant along with the place of arrest. Additionally, it had been written that he had been arrested based upon the statement of the co-accused.
- Court put strong emphasis on the arguments raised in favour of the appellant made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him.
- Bringing a clear distinction between an “arrest memo”& “Grounds of Arrest” the honourable court said that “arrest memo” means a memorandum which the police officers are bound to prepare while making an arrest that includes recording of identity, location & time of arrest as given under section 41B(b) of CrPC. But in the other hand Section 50 of the said code requires that every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest which is more than mere arrest memo.
- With the above observations the court held that this, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 , the court is inclined to set-aside the impugned remand order particularly, in light of the judgment rendered by this Court reported as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) holding the view that merely issuing an arrest memo without substantive grounds has no justification under section 50,r/w Art -22(1) which strengthen the right of individual against arbitrary arrest.
KEY PRECEDENT
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) CRLA,2024 SC
Brief Facts :
In this case, the officers of the PS Special Cell, New Delhi carried out extensive raids at the residential and official premises of the appellant and the company, namely, M/s. PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd.( company) of which the appellant is the Director in connection with FIR registered for the offences punishable under the sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The appellant was arrested In connection with the said FIR on 3rd October 2023 and the arrest memo was in a computerised format and does not contain any column regarding the grounds of arrest of the appellant. This very issue is primarily the bone of contention between the parties to the appeal.
The appellant was presented in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the appellant was remanded to seven days police custody vide order dated 4th October 2023. The appellant promptly questioned his arrest and the police custody remand granted by preferring criminal appeal in the High Court of Delhi which stands rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
Court’s Analysis and Findings :
The court found no significant difference in the language used in Section 19(1) of PMLA and Section 43B (1) of UAPA regarding informing the arrested person of the grounds for arrest.
The court stated that interpreting the phrase “inform him of the grounds for such arrest” made in the Pankaj Bansal case (which dealt with PMLA) should be applied to cases under UAPA too.
The court noted that the provisions regarding communication of grounds of arrest in both UAPA and PMLA find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The court held that the interpretation laid down in the Pankaj Bansal case regarding informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing should be applied equally to persons arrested under UAPA.
The court rejected the argument that there are variations in the overall provisions of PMLA and UAPA that would impact the statutory mandate to inform grounds of arrest.
The court emphasized that both statutes have a common modified application of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The court concluded that the interpretation of the statutory mandate laid down in the Pankaj Bansal case on informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing should be applied “pari passu” (on equal footing) to persons arrested under UAPA. The court said that this principle shall be applicable progressively and not retrospectively.
CONCLUSION
Finally, the decision in *Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh* establishes a key precedent for interpreting legal principles governing administrative proceedings, fundamental rights, and procedural fairness. The case emphasizes the importance of due process and the judiciary’s role in ensuring that government choices are consistent with constitutional mandates. By evaluating the court’s reasoning, it is clear that the decision underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and conformity to legal frameworks in administrative proceedings. This decision has an impact not just on comparable instances, but also on the growing jurisprudence on administrative law and individual rights, underlining the importance of striking a balance between state authority and personal liberty. Ensuring compliance with due process is not just a legal obligation – it’s a safeguard against misuse of power .
