The Uttarakhand High Court has held that supplying an arrest memo containing essential allegations can satisfy the constitutional requirement of informing an accused about the grounds of arrest. The Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the legality of arrest and subsequent judicial custody.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a criminal revision filed by Ravi Kant, who challenged his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with an FIR registered in Dehradun.
The FIR involved allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Following his arrest, Ravi Kant was produced before a Special Judicial Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody on October 9, 2024.
Read also:- Supreme Court Orders ₹164.91 Crore Refund to Auction Buyer in DDA Land Dispute, Sets Aside Conveyance Deed
The revisionist approached the High Court arguing that his arrest was unconstitutional and violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Counsel for the revisionist contended that the arrest was illegal because the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing at the time of arrest.
It was argued that this omission violated Article 22(1), which guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the reasons for arrest. The petitioner relied on recent Supreme Court rulings to argue that written communication of grounds is a mandatory safeguard.
“The requirement is not a formality but a constitutional protection,” the counsel submitted, stressing that failure to provide written grounds renders both arrest and remand invalid.
Opposing the plea, the CBI argued that the arrest was carried out lawfully and that the revisionist was sufficiently informed of the allegations.
The agency maintained that the arrest memo itself contained the essential facts of the case and had been provided to the accused at the time of arrest.
“The constitutional mandate is met if the accused understands the basis of arrest,” the respondent’s counsel argued, adding that no specific format is prescribed under law.
After hearing both sides, Justice Ashish Naithani examined whether the absence of a separate written document detailing grounds of arrest would invalidate the arrest.
The Court noted that Article 22(1) requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest in a meaningful manner so they can defend themselves.
“The object is to ensure awareness of the accusation, not adherence to any rigid format,” the bench observed.
The Court also clarified an important distinction between “grounds of arrest” and “reasons for arrest,” stating that the former refers to basic factual allegations, while the latter relates to justification for arrest.
Read also:- Patna High Court Upholds Rejection of Mutual Divorce Plea, Says One-Year Separation Rule Not Met
Importantly, the Court found that the arrest memo in this case contained the substance of allegations and had been supplied to the accused.
“In such circumstances, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing stands substantially complied with,” the Court held.
Concluding that there was no violation of constitutional safeguards, the High Court refused to interfere with the remand order.
“The revisionist was informed of the allegations forming the basis of his arrest... the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been violated,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed, and the remand order dated October 9, 2024, was upheld.
Case Details
Case Title: Ravi Kant vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024
Judge: Justice Ashish Naithani
Decision Date: March 18, 2026
