In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has declared a man’s arrest unlawful, emphasizing that informing an arrested person’s spouse of the grounds for detention does not satisfy legal requirements. The decision, which resulted in the voiding of subsequent remand orders and the release of the accused on bail, came from a Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande.
The case involved a man taken into custody on November 1, 2023, by Karad police, tied to a serious investigation into murder and kidnapping. However, when the police explained the reason for his arrest, they did so by calling his wife on a number he provided—never informing him directly. This action, according to the Court, did not meet the mandates of Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which requires that an individual arrested without a warrant must be personally informed of the grounds for their detention.
“We do not find any grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner,” stated the Court. It highlighted that the arrest documents lacked any proper communication of the arrest reason to the individual himself, rendering the arrest procedurally flawed.
Despite the prosecution’s defense, asserting that guidelines from the landmark DK Basu case had been observed and that the wife was appropriately informed, the High Court found these measures insufficient. The judges identified “a flagrant violation” of both Section 50 of the CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, which ensures that no person shall be held in custody without being informed of the charges against them.
The accused had contested the legality of his arrest, arguing that failing to communicate the arrest grounds violated constitutional protections. He pointed out that a series of remand orders couldn’t remedy the initial procedural failure. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that procedural rights must be upheld to ensure lawful detention.
The ruling underscores the critical nature of adhering to established protocols for arrests, reinforcing that any deviation compromises the legality of the process and the detainee’s rights.
