Case law (SC) – In the absence of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing (Under UAPA/PMLA) to the accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant u/s 19 of the PMLA and Sections 43A, 43B and 43C of the UAPA. The ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.
“18.
We find that the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest
to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the
same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA. The contention advanced by learned
ASG that there are some variations in the overall provisions contained in
Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43A and 43B of the UAPA would not have any
impact on the statutory mandate requiring the arresting officer to inform the
grounds of arrest to the person arrested under Section 43B(1) of the UAPA at
the earliest because as stated above, the requirement to communicate the
grounds of arrest is the same in both the statutes. As a matter of fact, both
the provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, applying the golden rules of
interpretation, the provisions which lay down a very important constitutional
safeguard to a person arrested on charges of committing an offence either under
the PMLA or under the UAPA, have to be uniformly construed and applied.
19.
We may note that the modified application of Section 167 CrPC is also common to
both the statutes. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the
interpretation of statutory mandate laid down by this Court in the case of
Pankaj Bansal(supra) on the aspect of informing the arrested person the grounds
of arrest in writing has to be applied pari passu to a person arrested in a
case registered under the provisions of the UAPA.
-------x---------------x---------------x-------------------x------------
48.
We have carefully perused the arrest memo (Annexure P-7) and find that the same
nowhere conveys the grounds on which the accused was being arrested. The arrest
memo is simply a proforma indicating the formal ‘reasons’ for which the accused
was being arrested.
49.
It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant
difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The
‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal
parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further
offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person
from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such
evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating
Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of
a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such
details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of
the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must
convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested
so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial
remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be
personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’
which are general in nature.
50.
From the detailed analysis made above, there is no hesitation in the mind of
the Court to reach to a conclusion that the copy of the remand application in
the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was
not provided to the accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the
order of remand dated 4th October, 2023 which vitiates the arrest and
subsequent remand of the appellant.
51.
As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody
by applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Pankaj Bansal(supra).
52.
Accordingly, the arrest of the appellant followed by remand order dated 4th
October, 2023 and so also the impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi
dated 13th October, 2023 are hereby declared to be invalid in the eyes of law
and are quashed and set aside.”
Comments
Post a Comment