Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, considered a writ petition filed by Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar challenging his arrest in connection with FIR No. 1191 of 2023 dated 31 October 2023, registered at Karad City Police Station, Satara. The petitioner 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, as he had not been informed of the specific grounds necessitating his arrest. He further challenged the remand order dated 1 November 2023 and subsequent remand orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad.
The criminal case involved allegations under Sections 302, 364, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, a dispute arose in connection with the relationship between the complainant’s brother and the daughter of another individual. The complainant alleged that certain persons abducted and assaulted him and others, including Janardhan Gurav, who subsequently died. The petitioner was not initially named as an accused, but his name was added during the investigation. He was arrested on 1 November 2023 and remanded to police custody. A charge sheet was subsequently filed.
The petitioner contended that his arrest was unconstitutional because the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him in writing before he was produced before the Magistrate. He maintained that successive remand orders could not validate an arrest that was illegal from its inception. Relying upon Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, the petitioner argued that effective communication of grounds of arrest was essential to safeguarding personal liberty and enabling an accused to contest custodial remand.
The State opposed the petition through an affidavit filed by Assistant Police Inspector Rajesh Prakash Mali. According to the investigating officer, the petitioner had been informed of the grounds of his arrest, an entry had been made in the station diary, his wife had been notified, an arrest panchnama had been prepared and he had been medically examined. The State further submitted that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours and had acknowledged receiving a copy of the remand report. It relied upon D. K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal to contend that the applicable arrest safeguards had been observed.
After examining the affidavit and supporting documents, the High Court found no satisfactory evidence that the specific grounds of arrest had been communicated to the petitioner. The arrest panchnama established that information regarding the arrest was conveyed to his wife, but the arrest/surrender form did not record the relevant grounds. The Court rejected the contention that service of the remand application sufficiently established compliance with the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest.
Relying upon Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench distinguished generic reasons for arrest from the factual grounds specific to the accused. General justifications such as preventing further offences, securing an investigation or protecting evidence could not substitute for communication of the basic facts necessitating arrest. Such information was required to enable the accused to consult counsel, oppose custodial remand and seek bail.
The High Court concluded that the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest constituted a flagrant violation of Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It declared the petitioner’s arrest in connection with FIR No. 1191 of 2023 illegal and the remand order dated 1 November 2023, together with subsequent remand orders, null and void. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith upon furnishing a bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court expressly clarified that its observations were restricted to the legality of arrest and would not affect the merits of the criminal proceedings.
Cases Discussed
1. Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India and Ors. (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051–3052 of 2023; 03/10/2023; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244; (2024) 7 SCC 576 — Relied upon by the petitioner regarding the obligation to communicate grounds of arrest and the protection of personal liberty.
2. D. K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal (Supreme Court); (1997) 1 SCC 416 — Cited by the State concerning safeguards governing arrest, including communication to relatives, preparation of arrest records and procedural compliance.
3. Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal No. 2577 of 2024; 15/05/2024; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934; (2024) 8 SCC 254 — Relied upon by the High Court to distinguish specific grounds of arrest from generic reasons for arrest. Paragraph 49 was reproduced in the judgment.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioner is seeking a declaration that his arrest in relation to FIR No.1191 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023, registered at Karad City Police Station, Satara is illegal and in gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. He is further seeking a declaration that the consequential remand order dated 01.11.2023 and all the subsequent remand orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Karad, are null and void and are in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in C.R. No. 1191 of 2023, for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Though initially he was not named as an accused, but during the course of investigation, name of the petitioner came to be added as an accused. He was arrested on 01.11.2023 at 12:41 p.m. and was produced before the J.M.F.C, Karad on the very day. He was remanded to police custody till 06.11.2023, and thereafter his police custody remand was extended upto 07.11.2023. Investigating Agency has fled charge-sheet in the present matter.
A complaint was lodged by one Pramod Vishwas Pawar alleging that, his brother Pravin had an affair with the daughter of one Balasaheb Pawar. On 30.10.2023, one Shekhar Pawar and four other unknown persons came inquiring the whereabouts of the brother of the complainant Pravin and when the complainant informed that he was not aware about his brother’s whereabouts, Shekhar assaulted the complainant and made the complainant sit in a Bolero car. It is further alleged that, there was another four wheeler, wherein the father of the complainant and one Janardhan Gurav had sat alongwith two other persons. The accused persons assaulted Janardhan, the complainant and his father with sticks, fsts and blows and due to the said assault, Janardhan has expired. Therefore the FIR was lodged in Karad City Police Station on 31.10.2023.
3. The petitioner had fled the regular Bail Application, which is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad. The petitioner is challenging his arrest in the present Writ Petition on the ground that, the grounds of arrest were not informed to him in writing and as such his arrest is in gross violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and there is total non-compliance of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that, mere passing of successive remand orders do not validate initial remand, if such arrest was not in conformity with law. The grounds of arrest ought to have been furnished to the petitioner before producing him before the learned J.M.F.C., Karad, seeking custody and subsequent remand. The continuing custody of the petitioner is grossly illegal and a nullity, since the initial arrest itself is in violation of constitutional mandate and is in flagrant violation of statutory rights of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pankaj Bansal V/s. Union of India and Ors.1 and the other various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of his contention.
5. The learned APP representing the State has relied on the affdavit affrmed by Mr. Rajesh Prakash Mali, the Assistant Police Inspector, attached to Karad City Police Station, Satara, wherein he has candidly stated that, during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2023 at 12:41 hours, since his name was revealed in the investigation. He was informed about the grounds of his arrest and the said fact has also been mentioned in the station diary dated 01.11.2023, maintained in Karad City Police Station.
It is further stated that, the concerned API has followed guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of D. K. Basu V/s. State of West Bengal2 by informing the wife of the petitioner about arrest of the petitioner on her mobile phone. Arrest panchanama to that effect was made and the same was signed by the panchas. After conducting necessary medical examination the petitioner was produced within 24 hours before the Court of J.M.F.C, Karad, alongwith the copy of remand report. The petitioner was given the copy of remand report, which has been acknowledged by him by putting his signature, therefore there is no violation of his fundamental rights as claimed by the petitioner. According to the API, before the arrest of the petitioner, reasons for arrest and his legal rights have been explained to the petitioner in presence of panchas and, accordingly, the arrest form of the petitioner was duly flled up. Therefore according to the API, the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of D. K. Basu (supra) have been complied with.
It is further stated in the affdavit that, informing the particulars of offence to the accused is the statutory as well as the constitutional requirement, the same is complied by way of fling remand application before the court, a copy of which has also been served on the accused and his lawyer.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State and after going through the reply affdavit and the documents annexed with the reply affdavit, we do not fnd any grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner. From the arrest panchanama it is evident that, information is given to his wife on the cell number provided by him, apart from which, there are no grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest surrender form.
So far as ground being communicated through the remand application is concerned, the law in this regard is now well settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prabir Purkayastha V/s State (NCT of Delhi)3 has elaborately considered this issue and in para 49 of the said decision, the distinction between the “reasons of arrest” and “grounds of arrest” have been culled out, which reads thus :
“49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a signifcant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Offcer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Offcer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.”
7. It is the requirement of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. that an accused, who is being arrested without warrant to be forthwith communicated about the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or the other grounds for such arrest. The petitioner has alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, by relying upon law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. Therefore, it is a specifc contention of the petitioner that, there is a violation of his constitutional as well as statutory rights.
8. After considering the submissions as well as the documents produced on record, we do not fnd grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner as contemplated by Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and explained by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in its various judicial pronouncements. We are satisfed that there is a flagrant violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Article 22(1) of the constitution of India, and since the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the petitioner, making his arrest illegal.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and we declare that the arrest of the petitioner in relation to FIR No. 1191 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 is illegal and in gross violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner and the consequential remand order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the J.M.F.C., Karad as well as the subsequent remand orders are null and void.
In view of the declaration, the petitioner deserves to be released forthwith from the custody on furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above terms.
We must clarify that the observations made in the present Writ Petition would not effect the merits of the case, but are restricted to the claim raised by the petitioner about the illegality of the arrest.
1 2023 SCC OnLine 1244. ↩
2 (1997) 1 SCC 416 ↩
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934 ↩
