The court also ruled that simply giving the reasons for arrest is not enough. Arrested persons must also be allowed to discuss their case with a lawyer before any decision is made about keeping them in custody.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, on February 4, ruled that people who are arrested must be told why they are being arrested immediately. They must also be given enough time to speak with their lawyer before any decision is made on whether they should be sent to police or judicial custody.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani, who was hearing the case, stated that according to Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the police or any other arresting agency must immediately inform the arrested person about the reason for their arrest.
“The word ‘forthwith’ appearing in section 50 Cr.P.C. mandates the Arresting Officer to serve upon an arrestee the grounds of arrest simultaneously with the issuance, or as part, of the arrest memo,” Justice Bhambani held.
He further said that this is the only correct interpretation of the law so that no one’s liberty is taken away unnecessarily or unfairly.
The court also ruled that simply giving the reasons for arrest is not enough. Arrested persons must also be allowed to discuss their case with a lawyer before any decision is made about keeping them in custody.
“In order to bring abundant clarity in the matter, this court would also observe that sufficient time must be given to an arrestee after the grounds of arrest have been served upon him in writing, to enable the arrestee to engage and confer with legal counsel, the test being that the arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand to police custody or judicial custody,” the Court said.
The court was hearing the plea of Marfing Tamang, a manager at an establishment, who had been accused of being involved in sexual abuse and exploitation of victims for financial gain. A criminal case was filed against him, and he was arrested.
ALSO READ: A Person Cannot be Arrested in GST Cases, Unless Credible Evidence is found: SC
On May 18, 2024, a trial court sent him to police custody for two days. Later, on May 20, 2024, he was sent to judicial custody for 14 days. He challenged these decisions before the High Court, arguing that his arrest and remand were not done according to the law.
His lawyer pointed out that the trial court order of May 18 mentioned that he was arrested at 6:30 PM on May 17, 2024. However, the police’s own report stated that he had reached the police station at 11:30 AM that day on police instructions.
The lawyer also said that the police failed to mention the exact offences against him in the remand application. This, he argued, was a violation of Section 50 of CrPC (which has now been replaced by Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
The State argued that the grounds for arrest were given to the petitioner on May 18 at 4:40 PM. It also said that there is no legal requirement to include the reasons for arrest in the remand application.
After hearing both sides, the High Court ruled that the petitioner’s arrest was unlawful because it did not follow Section 50 of the CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time of arrest, which is mandatory.
The court also set aside the trial court’s decision to send him to police custody. It pointed out that he was informed of his arrest reasons only an hour before the remand hearing. This did not give him a fair chance to contest his detention.
“Furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing just about an hour before the remand hearing cannot possibly be due or adequate compliance of the requirements of section 50 Cr.P.C., which mandates that grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee forthwith that is to say simultaneously and immediately upon the arrest of such person,”
the Court held.
The High Court then ordered his release from custody.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Adit S Pujari and Shaurya Mittal.
The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Utkarsh.
Case Title: Marfing Tamang @ Maaina Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi)
