Communicating grounds of arrest to wife of arrested person is not sufficient: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that communicating the grounds of arrest to the wife of an arrested person is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of a valid arrest without a warrant under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) [Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra].

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande made the observation while declaring a man's arrest in a murder and kidnapping case illegal.

The Court observed that the police had failed to inform the arrested person the grounds for his arrest but had instead communicated this information only to the accused man's wife using a number he had provided.

According to the Court, this did not satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the CrPC, which mandates that a person arrested without a warrant must be informed of the grounds for their arrest.

"We do not find any grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner. From the arrest panchanama, it is evident that information was given to his wife on the cell number provided by him; apart from this, there are no grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest surrender form, making his arrest illegal," the Court stated.

The accused was arrested in relation to a murder case on November 1, 2023 by the Karad police. He was later remanded to custody by a judicial magistrate on the same day.

Facing serious charges including murder and kidnapping, he had been added as an accused during the investigation. He argued that he was not informed in writing about the grounds for his arrest, claiming this violated both the constitutional mandate and the requirements of Section 50 of the CrPC.

He also contended that mere passing of successive remand orders did not validate an initial remand if the arrest was not lawful. He argued that the grounds for his arrest should have been provided before he was presented to the judicial magistrate in Karad for custody and subsequent remand.

He maintained that his continued custody was grossly illegal and a nullity, as the initial arrest violated constitutional mandates and was a flagrant violation of his statutory rights.

The State, however, contended that the arrest adhered to the guidelines established in the landmark DK Basu case. The prosecution added that the accused's wife was informed of his arrest and that necessary protocols were followed, including the provision of a remand report.

After considering both arguments, the Court held that the communication of grounds for arrest to the wife was insufficient.

"After considering the submissions as well as the documents produced on record, we do not find grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner as contemplated by Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and explained by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in its various judicial pronouncements," the Court held.

It identified a "flagrant violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India."

Consequently, the Court declared the accused's arrest illegal, voided the subsequent remand orders, and ordered his release on bail.

Advocate Suyash N Khose along with advocates Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mangesh Kusurkar and Siddharth Sutaria appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor SS Kaushik appeared for the State.

[Read Order]