The Bombay High Court recently ruled that merely informing the wife of an arrested person about the grounds of his detention does not fulfil the legal requirements for a valid arrest without a warrant under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande declared a man’s arrest in a murder and kidnapping case unlawful, citing a violation of Section 50 of the CrPC.

"We do not find any grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner. From the arrest panchanama, it is evident that information was given to his wife on the cell number provided by him; apart from this, there are no grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest surrender form, making his arrest illegal," the Bench observed.

Advocate Suyash N. Khose appeared for Nimbalkar, and APP S.S. Kaushik appeared for the State of Maharashtra.

The Court observed that the Karad police, who had arrested the man on November 1, 2023, in connection with a murder case, did not personally inform him of the reasons for his arrest but instead communicated these to his wife. The Bench emphasized that Section 50 of the CrPC mandates that an individual arrested without a warrant must be personally informed of the arrest grounds, a requirement that was unmet in this case.

"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 specific contention of the petitioner that there is a violation of his constitutional as well as statutory rights......we do not find 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 satisfied 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," the Court said.

The accused, who was remanded in custody on the same day of his arrest, argued that his statutory rights had been violated by not being directly informed of the grounds for his detention, rendering his arrest and continued custody illegal. He contended that subsequent remand orders did not validate the original arrest if it was procedurally flawed.

The State maintained that the arrest was conducted in accordance with guidelines from the DK Basu case, adding that the accused’s wife was informed and procedural requirements were met, including the submission of a remand report.

However, the Court held that this was insufficient, stressing that the law requires direct communication to the individual being detained. "...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," the Court ordered.

The Bench concluded that the failure to directly inform the accused constituted a “flagrant violation” of Section 50 of the CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court declared the arrest illegal, quashed subsequent remand orders, and ordered the accused’s release on bail.

Cause Title: Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar v. The State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation No. 2024:BHC-AS:42737]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Suyash N. Khose, Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mangesh Kusurkar, Siddharth Sutaria

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor S. S. Kaushik

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Bharati DangreJustice Manjusha DeshpandeBombay High Court

Sukriti Mishra