The Supreme Court of India recently set aside the arrest and remand of an accused, emphasizing that merely providing an arrest memo does not fulfill the legal obligation of supplying the grounds of arrest in writing. This decision follows the principles laid down in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, reaffirming that compliance with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is mandatory.

Case Background

The case in question involved an appeal filed by Ashish Kakkar against the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The appellant was arrested on December 30, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 33/2022 under Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Following his arrest, he was remanded to police custody for three days.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders Probe Into Alleged Irregularities In Punjab Municipal Elections

Challenging his arrest and remand, the appellant raised three crucial legal grounds:

Non-compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC – The requirement of issuing a notice before arrest was allegedly not followed.

Denial of an opportunity to be heard at the time of remand – The appellant claimed he was not given a fair hearing.

Failure to provide the grounds of arrest as required under Section 50 of CrPC – Instead of the grounds of arrest, only an arrest memo was furnished.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, decided to focus on the third issue—whether furnishing an arrest memo alone fulfills the legal requirement of supplying the grounds of arrest.

“We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him.” – Supreme Court

The Court noted that the arrest memo provided to the appellant contained only basic details such as his name, place of arrest, and a mention that he was arrested based on the statement of a co-accused. However, it lacked specific allegations or charges against him.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Acquits Man in 30-Year-Old Murder Case: Examining the Role of Prior Enmity in Criminal Trials

Section 50 of the CrPC mandates that any individual arrested without a warrant must be informed of the grounds of their arrest. This provision aligns with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which safeguards an individual’s right to be informed of the reasons for their detention.

The Court emphasized that failure to adhere to this mandate results in the arrest and subsequent remand being legally unsustainable.

“This being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code, which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment.” – Supreme Court

Given the legal shortcomings in the arrest procedure, the Supreme Court set aside the arrest and remand order, ruling that the appellant should be released unless required in another case. The Court also relied on its previous decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) to reinforce the principle that procedural lapses in arrest violate fundamental rights and cannot be overlooked.

“In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment stands set aside and the arrest of the appellant followed by the consequential remand order are also set aside.” – Supreme Court

Case Details: ASHISH KAKKAR v. UT OF CHANDIGARH|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1518 /2025

Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal for petitioner and Advocate Bhuvan Kapoor for Respondent