PRABIR PURKAYASTHA versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 15-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 666 : 2024 INSC 414
Prabir Purkayastha 
v. 
State (NCT of Delhi)
(Criminal Appeal No. 2577 of 2024)
15 May 2024 
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused-
appellant was vitiated as the copy of the remand application 
was not provided to him or his counsel before passing of the 
order of remand thus, not informing him of the grounds of arrest 
in writing.
Headnotes
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 
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
667
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
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]
668
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.