Section
50 of the CrPC mandates that every police officer arresting a person without a
warrant must immediately inform them of the full particulars of the offense or
the grounds for their arrest.
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the grounds for arrest under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be provided to the accused simultaneously with the arrest memo in Maaina Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Section 50
of the CrPC mandates that any police officer or person arresting an individual
without a warrant must immediately inform them of the full particulars of the
offense or the grounds for their arrest.
Justice
Anup Jairam Bhambhani emphasized that investigating officers can no longer treat the obligation
of serving the grounds of arrest with any leniency. The Delhi High Court, while
delivering its ruling, referred to a 2024 decision by a coordinate bench, which
held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee immediately
and without delay.
Notably, the
Court also interpreted the term “forthwith” in Section 50 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to mean that a person arrested must be provided with
the grounds of arrest simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest memo.
Clarifying
any ambiguity in the interpretation of Pranav Kuckereja (supra),
the Court emphasized:
“If any
ambiguity were to remain regarding the interpretation given by the coordinate
bench in Pranav Kuckereja (supra), this Court would further hold
that the word ‘forthwith’ appearing in Section 50 CrPC mandates the Arresting
Officer (‘A.O.’) to serve upon an arrestee the grounds of arrest simultaneously
with the issuance, or as part, of the arrest memo.” The Delhi High Court emphasized that
interpreting the term “forthwith” in Section 50 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) in this manner aligns with the constitutional mandate that no
individual should be deprived of liberty arbitrarily or unnecessarily.
The Court
further explained that an individual is only formally arrested after being
detained for inquiry or interrogation when the Investigating Officer (IO)
determines that there are justifiable grounds for arrest.
“Once the
grounds for requiring a person’s arrest have been formulated in the
investigating officer’s mind, there can possibly be no reason why those grounds
cannot be reduced into writing and communicated to the person simultaneously at
the time of arrest,” the Court underscored.
Any other
interpretation of the term “forthwith,” the Court noted, would not only dilute
its plain meaning but also undermine an individual’s fundamental rights.
Without being explicitly and formally informed of the grounds for arrest, an
arrestee would be unable to seek legal recourse against such detention.
The Court
also took note of the Pranav Kuckereja ruling, wherein the
coordinate bench suggested incorporating a dedicated column in the “Arrest
Memo” format, requiring the Investigating or Arresting Officer to document and
communicate the grounds for arrest at the time of issuing the memo. This, the Court
stated, would streamline and ensure compliance with the mandate of Section 50
CrPC.
These
observations were made while ordering the release of a manager of an
establishment accused of engaging in the sexual abuse and exploitation of
victims for financial gain.
