Introduction

The judgment in Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others decided by the Allahabad High Court on April 9, 2025, addresses a critical procedural issue in criminal law. The case concerns the arrest and subsequent remand of the petitioner, who challenged the legality of the arrest memo and remand order on the basis that the statutory and constitutional requirements for communicating the grounds of arrest were not met.

The petitioner, Manjeet Singh, was arrested in connection with a range of serious charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, following an FIR registered on February 15, 2024. At the heart of the petitioner’s appeal is the argument that the arrest and remand were procedurally flawed because the grounds for arrest were not communicated in writing, thereby infringing upon the constitutional mandates under Article 22(1) and the statutory requirements of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 47 and 48 BNSS).

Summary of the Judgment

The Allahabad High Court set aside the remand order issued on December 26, 2024, and quashed the arrest of the petitioner. The court found that the procedural requirements relating to the communication of the grounds of arrest were not fulfilled. In particular, the arrest memo provided was a printed proforma lacking any reference to the reasons or grounds for the petitioner’s arrest. The Court held that this omission amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and by extension, his right to personal liberty under Article 21. Relying on a series of precedents where similar procedural lapses led to the quashing of remand orders, the court ordered the petitioner’s immediate release on personal bond.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In reaching its decision, the court cited several pivotal precedents:

• Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra – The Supreme Court emphasized the role of the remand magistrate in ensuring that the procedural requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest is met. The court reinforced that failure to provide an adequate opportunity for the accused to contest the remand may vitiate the entire process.
• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) – This decision underscored the necessity of furnishing written reasons behind an arrest and remand, thereby laying the groundwork for judicial scrutiny over the process.
• PANKAJ BANSAL v. UNION OF INDIA – The case reiterates the mandate that an arrest memo must contain sufficient particulars to apprise the accused of the grounds of arrest.
• ASHISH KAKKAR v. UT OF CHANDIGARH – The Apex Court in this matter clearly observed that an incomplete arrest memo, devoid of relevant details such as the grounds of arrest, fails to comply with the requirements established under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., thereby mandating the quashing of the remand order.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary’s insistence on strict adherence to procedural safeguards as enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the imperatives of Articles 21 and 22.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning in the present case rested on the following pillars:

• Constitutional Mandates: The judgment emphasizes that Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that any person arrested must be informed in writing of the grounds for their arrest. This notice is a critical safeguard against arbitrary detention.
• Statutory Provisions: The relevant provisions of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 47 and 48 BNSS) obligate law enforcement authorities to provide full particulars of the offense or the grounds of arrest immediately upon arrest. The failure to do so renders the arrest procedurally defective.
• Judicial Oversight: The court pointed out that the remand magistrate had a duty to ascertain whether the requisite procedural formalities and the accused’s right to legal representation were respected. The absence of any opportunity for the accused to contest the custodial remand further aggravated the breach of constitutional safeguards.

Ultimately, the court found that the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest not only breaches statutory requirements but also amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights of the individual, thereby nullifying both the arrest and subsequent remand.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for both law enforcement and judicial practice:

• Enhanced Scrutiny of Arrest Procedures: The ruling reinforces the need for police and judicial officers to strictly adhere to procedural mandates, particularly the requirement to provide detailed written grounds for arrest.
• Judicial Safeguards: Future cases involving allegations of procedural lapses in arrest and remand proceedings are likely to be scrutinized more rigorously, with courts inclined to quash orders that do not meet the constitutional standards.
• Training and Policy Reforms: The order to inform the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and to issue a circular to all police commissioners, SSPs, and SPs signals a potential restructuring of arrest procedure protocols to avoid future violations of Section 50/50A provisions.
• Legal Representation and Rights Awareness: The ruling highlights the paramount importance of ensuring that arrested individuals are made aware of their rights to consult legal counsel and to be properly represented, thereby setting a precedent for further exploration of the interface between statutory regulations and constitutional rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment involves several legal concepts which can be simplified as follows:

• Article 22(1) of the Constitution: This article guarantees that any person arrested must be informed in writing of the reasons for their arrest. This communication is essential for the individual to challenge the legality of the detention.
• Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This statutory provision requires that police officers immediately inform the arrested person about the particulars of the alleged offense, ensuring transparency in the arrest process.
• Remand Order: A judicial decision to hold an arrested person in custody while further investigation is ongoing. The order must be justified by a detailed review of the procedural and substantive aspects of the arrest process.
• Legal Aid and the Right to Counsel: The court’s emphasis on the provision of legal aid underscores the right of an accused to have competent representation, ensuring that they fully understand and can contest the proceedings against them.

Conclusion

In summary, the judgment in Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others reinforces a central tenet of criminal procedure: the necessity of communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused. By quashing the arrest and remand order on the grounds of non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 Cr.P.C., the court has underscored that any deviation from these constitutional and statutory mandates not only vitiates arrest procedures but also violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

This decision not only adds to the evolving jurisprudence on arrest procedures but also sets a clear precedent for future cases. It serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies and judicial officers alike of their duty to uphold the procedural safeguards designed to protect individual rights. As such, the ruling is poised to influence both policy and practice, ensuring stricter adherence to legal norms and better protection of constitutional rights.