Gopal Chandrakant Angchekar Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, considered a criminal writ petition filed by Gopal Chandrakant Angchekar challenging the legality of his arrest by Tilaknagar Police Station, Dombivli, Thane, on 17 April 2024. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with a criminal case and subsequently remanded to police and judicial custody by the Special Court dealing with cases under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. He sought a declaration that his arrest violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the grounds of his arrest had not been communicated in writing.
The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India and Others and Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi), together with the Bombay High Court’s decision in Mahesh Naik Vs State of Maharashtra. The petitioner submitted that these decisions required meaningful written communication of the factual grounds necessitating arrest, enabling an accused to consult counsel, contest custodial remand and seek bail. The central issue was whether the communication recorded by the police satisfied these constitutional and statutory requirements.
During the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor produced the station diary dated 17 April 2024. The diary recorded that the police had explained the history of the offence, informed the petitioner of the reasons for his arrest and communicated the fact of arrest to his son, Omkar Gopal Angchekar. The High Court examined whether this disclosure was sufficient. It distinguished between general reasons for arrest and specific grounds of arrest, observing that the grounds must contain the material factual details available to the investigating officer which necessitated arrest of the particular accused.
Following the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, as applied by the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Naik, the Bench held that merely informing the accused of the reasons for arrest did not fulfil the requirement of supplying grounds of arrest in writing. The Court emphasised that such grounds must disclose the basic facts justifying the arrest so that the accused has a meaningful opportunity to defend against custodial remand and seek bail. Finding non-compliance with these requirements, the High Court declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal and in gross violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC. The writ petition was allowed, and Rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). The Court did not adjudicate the underlying criminal allegations or determine the petitioner’s guilt.
Cases Discussed
1. Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India and Others (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051–3052 of 2023; 03/10/2023; (2024) 7 SCC 576 — Relied upon for the distinction between general reasons for arrest and specific grounds of arrest, and the requirement of written communication of grounds under the statutory and constitutional framework. Related TaxGuru discussion.
2. Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal No. 2577 of 2024; 15/05/2024; 2024 INSC 414; (2024) 8 SCC 254 — Relied upon concerning written communication of grounds of arrest as an essential constitutional safeguard, including its application beyond offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Related TaxGuru discussion.
3. Mahesh Pandurang Naik Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court); Criminal Writ Petition (ST) No. 13835 of 2024; 18/07/2024 — Followed by the Bench in applying the principles concerning written communication of grounds of arrest under Section 50 CrPC and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Related TaxGuru discussion.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. The Petitioner came to be arrested on 17.04.2024 by the police officials of Tilaknagar Police Station, Dombivli, District Thane, in connection with C.R. No. 271 of 2020 dated 25.03.2024, registered with the concerned police station.
He was produced before the Special Court for MPID Cases, Kalyan on the same date and the Court remanded him to police custody on 22.04.2024 and thereafter by order dated 22.04.2024, he has been remanded to judicial custody.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, seeking a declaration that his arrest is illegal and in gross violation of the rights conferred on him, under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, as there is no adherence to the law laid down as regards the arrest and specific reliance is placed on Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”), which lend support to the mandate ensuring in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In addition, the reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal V/s. Union of India And Ors., delivered on 03.10.2023, wherein it is held that we shall made it imperative to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing, the offence with which the Court was concerned though pertain to PMLA.
4. While advancing his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Prabir Purkayastha V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) delivered on 15.05.2024, as well as the decision of this Court in case of Mahesh Naik V/s. The State of Maharashtra And Anr., delivered on 18.07.2024, where the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, having binding effect on all, was made applicable to such an arrest which fell short of the compliances, which were directed to be ensured by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha.
5. On the last date of hearing, we asked the learned A.P.P. to ascertain the facts of the case. Today Ms. Kaushik has placed before us the Station Diary dated 17.04.2024 of Tilak Nagar Police Station, in connection with C.R. No. 271 of 2024 and on its reading it is evidently clear that at the time of effecting arrest of the present Petitioner under the provisions of MPID Act, it is noted that as the history of the offence was explained to him and he was also informed about the reasons for his arrest and even intimation of his arrest was given to Shri. Omkar Gopal Angchekar, the son of the Petitioner.
6. What the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is followed by us in the case of Mahesh Naik contemplate is communication of the grounds of arrest in writing and as in case of Pankaj Bansal, their Lordship of the Hon’ble Apex Court has drawn a distinction between the ‘reasons of arrest’ and the ‘grounds of the arrest’ and specifically recorded that the grounds of arrest are required to be furnished, which shall contain all such details in the hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused and it is imperative that they must be conveyed in writing, so that all the basic facts for which he is arrested would provide an opportunity of defending himself against the custodial remand for seeking bail.
7. Having failed to adhere to the authority/ pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the decision of this Court in case of Mahesh Naik, we are inclined to grant relief in prayer of the Petition, by declaring that his arrest in connection with FIR No.271 of 2024 on 25.03.2024, by Tilak Nagar Police Station, Dombivli East, is illegal being in gross violation of the rights, guaranteed him under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, alongwith Section 50 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) and (B).
