Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Constitution of India – Articles 22(1) and 22(5) – FIR registered u/ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 22C, UAPA r/w ss.153A, 120B, IPC – Appellant was arrested in connection therewith however, the arrest memo did not contain the ‘grounds of arrest’ – Appellant subsequently remanded to police custody by Remand Judge – Grounds of arrest were thus, not furnished to the appellant at the time of his arrest and before remanding him to police custody – Arrest and the police custody remand challenged by the appellant – Rejected by Single Judge of the High Court by impugned judgment – Validity:

Held: Requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation – Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal – Grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest – Arrest memo nowhere conveyed the grounds on which the appellant was being arrested – It was simply a proforma indicating the formal ‘reasons’ for which he was being arrested – Copy of the FIR was provided to the Advocate representing the accused for the first time on 5.10.2023 – Appellant was arrested on 3.10.2023 at 5:45 p.m. as per the arrest memo – Investigating Officer (IO) had a clear window till 5:44 p.m. on 4.10.2023 for producing the appellant before the Magistrate concerned and to seek his police custody remand, if required – The advocate of the appellant presented himself at the police station on 3.10.2023 after the appellant was arrested and his mobile number was available with the IO however, the appellant was presented before the Remand Judge at his residence sometime before 6:00 a.m. on 3.10.2023 – A remand Advocate was kept present in the Court purportedly to provide legal assistance to the appellant – This entire exercise was done in a clandestine manner and was a blatant attempt to circumvent the due process of law; to confine the accused to police custody without informing him the grounds on which he was arrested; deprive him of the opportunity to avail the services of the legal practitioner of his choice so as to oppose the prayer for police custody remand, seek bail and also to mislead the Court – The accused having engaged an Advocate to defend himself, there was no reason as to why, information about the proposed remand application was not sent in advance to his Advocate – The remand application was transmitted to the advocate of the appellant after the remand was granted by the Remand Judge which was at 6:00 a.m. as per the remand order dtd. 4.10.2023 – The remand order recorded that the copy of the remand application was sent to the Advocate engaged by the appellant through WhatsApp – These lines give a clear indication of subsequent insertion – The order of remand had already been passed at 6:00 a.m. and hence, the subsequent opportunity of hearing, if any, provided to the counsel was nothing but an exercise in futility – The copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand dtd. 4.10.2023 which vitiated his arrest and subsequent remand – Arrest of the appellant followed by remand order dtd. 4.10.2023 and the impugned order passed by the High Court are invalid and are quashed and set aside – Appellant entitled to be released from custody by applying the ratio in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [2023] 12 SCR 714. [Paras 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 50, 51]

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43B(1) – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.19(1) – Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Appellant placed reliance on the judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [2023] 12 SCR 714 to contend that in the said case s.19(1) of PMLA which is pari materia to s.43B(1) of the UAPA was interpreted and it was held that if the initial arrest is not in conformity with law, mere passing of successive remand orders would not be sufficient to validate the same:

Held: There is no significant difference in the language employed in Section 19(1) of the PMLA and Section 43B(1) of the UAPA – The provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA – The contention advanced by the respondent that there are some variations in the overall provisions contained in Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43A and 43B of the UAPA would not have any impact on the statutory mandate requiring the arresting officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the person arrested under Section 43B(1) of the UAPA at the earliest because, the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is the same in both the statutes – Both the provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Hence, applying the golden rules of interpretation, the provisions which lay down a very important constitutional safeguard to a person arrested on charges of committing an offence either under the PMLA or under the UAPA, have to be uniformly construed and applied – The interpretation of statutory mandate laid down in Pankaj Bansal on the aspect of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in writing has to be applied pari passu to a person arrested in a case registered under the provisions of the UAPA. [Paras 17, 19]

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Constitution of India – Articles 20, 21 and 22 – Right to be informed about grounds of arrest in writing – Purpose:

Held: Any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest – The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail – Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed u/ Article 22(1) – The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed u/Articles 20, 21 and 22 – Any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with strictly – The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand – Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused – The plea of the respondent that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant is rejected. [Paras 20-22]

Criminal Law – Arrest memo – ‘reasons for arrest’ vis-à-vis ‘grounds of arrest’ – ‘grounds of arrest’ cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’:

Held: There is a significant 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 Officer – 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 Officer 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. [Para 49]

Constitution of India – Article 141 – Plea of the respondent that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [2023] 12 SCR 714 relied upon by the accused-appellant would not apply to the proceedings of remand made on 4.10.2023 as the appellant was remanded to police custody on 4.10.2023 whereas the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was uploaded on the website of Supreme Court in the late hours of 4.10.2023 and hence, the arresting officer could not be expected to ensure compliance of the directions given therein and thus, the alleged inaction of the IO in furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant cannot be called into question as the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was uploaded and brought in public domain after the remand order had been passed:

Held: Said plea is misconceived – Indisputably, the appellant was remanded to police custody on 4.10.2023 whereas the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal was delivered on 3.10.2023 – Merely on a conjectural submission regarding the late uploading of the judgment, the respondent cannot be permitted to argue that the ratio of Pankaj Bansal would not apply to the present case – Once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. [Para 45]

Constitution of India – Article 22(5), 22(1) – Respondent referring to language of Article 22(5) contended that even in a case of preventive detention, the Constitutional scheme does not require that the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed should be communicated to the detenu in writing:

Held: Said submission is ex facie untenable in eyes of law – It has been the consistent view of this Court that the grounds on which the liberty of a citizen is curtailed, must be communicated in writing so as to enable him to seek remedial measures against the deprivation of liberty – The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical – Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the ‘grounds’ of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be communicated in writing – Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 918 while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. [Paras 27-29]