Constitutional Mandate Does Not Require That Grounds Of Arrest Must Necessarily Be Recorded On A Separate Document Distinct From The Arrest Memo: Uttarakhand HC
It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Uttarakhand High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ravi Kant Vs Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:UHC:1846 that was reserved on 18.12.2025 and then was finally pronounced on 18.03.2026 while considering a criminal revision against a remand order that was passed in a criminal case upheld a remand order that had been passed against an accused in a case of criminal conspiracy and forgery. It must be noted that the Uttarakhand High Court made it indubitably clear in this leading case that the constitutional mandate does not require that the grounds of arrest must necessarily be recorded on a separate document distinct from the arrest memo. It also merits noting that the High Court also noted that the revisionist was informed of the allegations and the relevant document containing the allegations was supplied to him at the time of his arrest.
At the very outset, thisrief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashish Naithani of Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the legality of the remand order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun, in relation to FIR No. RC0072023S0006, registered at Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The revisionist has also prayed that his arrest be declared illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and that he be released from judicial custody forthwith.”
As we see, the Bench then points out in para 2 that, “The case of the investigating agency, as reflected from the record, is that the above-mentioned FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, Dehradun, in connection with alleged offences relating to criminal conspiracy and forgery punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “During the course of investigation, the revisionist came to be arrested by the investigating agency. After his arrest, the revisionist was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody by order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “The revisionist has assailed the legality of the said remand order primarily on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal and unconstitutional. According to the revisionist, at the time of his arrest the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing, which according to him constitutes a violation of the safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to communication of grounds of arrest.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 25 that, “Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.”
As things stands, the Bench then stipulates in para 26 noting that, “The principal question which arises for consideration in the present criminal revision is whether the arrest of the revisionist suffers from illegality on account of non-compliance with the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and whether on that basis the remand order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun deserves to be set aside.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 27 that, “Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest. The object of this constitutional safeguard is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the basis of his arrest so that he may effectively exercise his right to seek legal remedies including bail and to prepare his defence.”
While citing a relevant and recent case law, the Bench observes in para 28 that, “The jurisprudence relating to communication of grounds of arrest has undergone certain developments through various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that furnishing written grounds of arrest is a vital safeguard and held that ordinarily a copy of such grounds should be provided to the arrested person.”
While continuing in the same vein, the Bench then citing another recent and relevant case law states in para 29 that, “Subsequently, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) is satisfied if the arrested person is informed of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest in a meaningful manner, so that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved. The Court emphasised that the manner of communication must effectively convey the substance of the accusation.”
Most fundamentally, the long and short of such judgments is then stated by the Bench in para 30 holding that, “From the above decisions, it is evident that the fundamental requirement is that the arrested person must be informed of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest, and such information must be conveyed in a manner that enables him to understand the allegations against him.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 31 that, “It is also well settled that there exists a distinction between the “reasons for arrest” and the “grounds of arrest”. The reasons for arrest are generally the statutory considerations which justify the necessity of arrest, whereas the grounds of arrest consist of the basic factual allegations which constitute the offence attributed to the arrested person.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 32 that, “In the present case, the record indicates that the arrest of the revisionist was followed by preparation of the arrest memo, wherein the essential facts constituting the alleged offence were recorded. The arrest memo indicates that the arrest was made in connection with the alleged commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to FIR No. RC0072023S0006 registered at Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 33 that, “The arrest memo further records the substance of the allegations forming the basis of the arrest. The said document was admittedly supplied to the revisionist at the time of arrest.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 34 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In the considered opinion of this Court, once a written document containing the essential factual allegations forming the basis of the arrest is supplied to the arrested person, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing stands substantially complied with. The constitutional mandate does not require that the grounds of arrest must necessarily be recorded on a separate document distinct from the arrest memo.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 35 that, “The object of Article 22(1) is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the accusations forming the basis of the arrest. If such information is conveyed through the arrest memo or any contemporaneous document supplied to the accused, the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 36 noting that, “In the present case, the revisionist was informed of the allegations forming the basis of the arrest and was produced before the competent Magistrate in accordance with law. The remand order dated 09.10.2024 was thereafter passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.”
Truly speaking, the Bench then propounds in para 37 holding precisely that, “In view of the material placed on record, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the revisionist that the arrest was effected in violation of the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 38 that, “Consequently, the foundation on which the present criminal revision has been filed, namely the alleged illegality of the arrest and the consequential invalidity of the remand order, cannot be sustained.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist that his arrest was effected in violation of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
The record indicates that the revisionist was informed of the allegations forming the basis of his arrest and the relevant document containing the essential factual allegations was supplied to him at the time of arrest. In such circumstances, the requirement of communication of the grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated.
Consequently, the remand order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun, in relation to FIR No.RC0072023S0006 registered at Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.”
Author Bio
