The court said “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 and other mandatory safeguards has been made.”
Prayagraj – The Allahabad High Court has said that not informing someone of the reason for their arrest is a violation of Article 22 of the Constitution, and such a violation can be a valid ground to grant bail, even if there are legal limits on giving bail.
ALSO READ: “Excessive Bail is No Bail”: Supreme Court
The High Court cancelled the remand order dated December 25, passed by a magistrate in Rampur, saying that the reasons for the arrest were not given to the arrested person in this case.
“The requirement of informing the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22 of the Constitution,”
“It is the duty of the magistrate to ascertain its compliance and that of other mandatory safeguards.”
A division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar gave this ruling while hearing a writ petition filed by Manjeet Singh, who had been arrested in connection with a case involving cheating, criminal intimidation, and breach of peace.
The court clearly stated that when someone is arrested, the grounds for arrest must be communicated properly in a way the arrested person understands.
“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.”
In this case, an FIR was registered against Manjeet Singh on February 15, 2024, and he was arrested and presented before a magistrate on December 26, 2024. He was then sent to judicial custody based on a printed remand order.
ALSO READ: “Strange” Trend of Bail : SC Slammed Patna High Court Order to Grant Bail After 6 months
The High Court noted serious lapses in the arrest process:
“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.”
The court said that when an arrested person is brought before a judicial magistrate, it is not just a formality. The magistrate must check whether all the constitutional protections and legal safeguards have been followed.
“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 and other mandatory safeguards has been made.”
And if there is a clear violation of Article 22, the court should not delay the person’s release.
“When a violation of Article 22 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.”
The lawyer representing Manjeet Singh argued that the main issue was not whether the FIR was right or wrong, but the illegal procedure followed during the arrest and remand.
He pointed out that neither the reasons nor the grounds for arrest were given in writing to Manjeet Singh at the time of arrest, which is required under Article 22 of the Constitution.
After hearing all sides, the High Court on April 9, 2025, ruled in favour of the petitioner. It cancelled the December 26 remand order and also quashed the arrest of Manjeet Singh, citing violation of constitutional safeguards.
