Constitution of India, Art. 22(1)-Necessity of informing person B arrested grounds for his arrest-Arrest illegal if Article not complied with-Order of remand by magistrate cannot cure constitutional infirmity.

The petitioners were arrested on November 6, 1968 at a railway station in Bihar. According to the Sub-Inspector's report recorded in the general diary they had taken out a procession in defiance of a prohibitory order under s. 144 Cr, P.C. and had been arrested under s. 151 Cr. P.C. It was stated that report was being submitted "under sections 107 and 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under s. 188 of the Indian Penal Code." On November 6 itself the first petitioner sent a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in the form of a letter mentioning that he and his companions had been arrested but no grounds of arrest had been communicated to them and they had been merely told that the arrests had been made "under sections which were bailable". It was prayed that a writ of Habeas Corpus be issued. On November 7, 1968 a similar position was sent by the petitioners from Jail. The additional fact given was that the arrested persons had been produced before the sub-Divisional Magistrate who had on their refusal to furnish bail remanded them to custody upto November 20, 1968. Rule nisi was issued by this Court to the State authorities to produce the petitioners before the Court on November 25, 1968. On November 19, 1968 a first information report was recorded in which it was alleged that the petitioners had on Noveni her 6, 1968 committed offences under ss. 188 and 143 of the Penal Code. In the return, before this Court it was explained on behalf of the State that the officer-in-charge while forwarding the arrested persons on November 6, 1968, had by mistake omitted to mention s. 143 I.P.C. which was a cognizable offence. It was urged that the order of remand passed by the Magistrate could not be said to be illegal merely because of the omission of s. 143 1.P.C. in the order sheet when the police report clearly made out a case under that section. It was not claimed that the F grounds of arrest had been supplied to the petitioners.