"Grounds Of Arrest Informed After 7 Hrs": P&H HC Declares Arrest Illegal, Says Grounds Must Be Conveyed To Accused In A Meaningful Manner

The Punjab & Haryana High Court declared the arrest of a music producer illegal, as the grounds for arrest were not provided to him at the time of his arrest. The Court noted that the grounds for arrest were communicated through a memo that was prepared 7 hours after his detention, which would vitiate the arrest.

Punjabi Singer Sunanda Sharma on a social media post, accused Pushpinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal of harassment, cheating and wrongfully restraining her.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The duty to communicate the grounds of arrest in a meaningful and comprehensible manner becomes all the more imperative. In order to realize the constitutional mandate and ensure it is not reduced to a hollow formality, such information must be conveyed in a manner that enables the arrestee to effectively respond. Merely conveying the grounds in technical or mechanical terms, without ensuring his comprehension, would defeat the overarching goal which is to protect the individual from unlawful detention, prevent misuse of power and reinforce the rule of law."

A habeas corpus plea was filed by the daughter of the detenue stating that he was arrested on the evening of March 08, without any arrest memo.

Senior counsel appearing for Dalliwal stated that pursuant to the appointment of the Warrant Officer by the Court, he reached the concerned Police Station at 12:40 AM on 09.03.2025. At that time, no arrest memo had been prepared or issued in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of Cr.P.C (Section 47 of BNSS, 2023).

After analysing the submissions and Warrant Officer's report the Court said that the guidelines in the landmark decision of D.K. Basu's case were formulated to enhance transparency, prevent police abuse, and hold law enforcement authorities accountable for their actions.

Justice Brar highlighted that "the consistent reiteration of these safeguards underscores the unwavering commitment to protecting fundamental rights and upholding the principles of justice. By setting forth clear norms for police conduct during detention and custody, the judiciary has continuously strived to balance the imperatives of law enforcement with the inviolable rights of individuals, thereby fortifying the constitutional guarantee of justice and human dignity."

Referring to Article 22(1) the Court said that, it ensures that every arrested person is informed, 'as soon as may be,' of the reasons for their detention, allowing them to challenge the legality of their arrest. Additionally, the use of the word 'forthwith' in Section 47 of BNSS also begs the inference that the grounds of arrest must be communicated at the earliest.

Reliance was placed on a recent decision of Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another to underscore that the grounds of arrest must now be communicated in writing to the arrestee. As such, the failure to adequately inform the arrestee of the grounds of his arrest equates to deprivation of his personal liberty in contravention of the procedure established by law, which is in direct violation of Article 22 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, any action taken to post an unlawful arrest is automatically rendered void ab initio, be it obtaining a remand order from the jurisdictional Magistrate, the judge opined.

In the present case, the Court noted that the detenu was picked up from his residence by the police on the pretext of questioning and upon his arrival at Police Station Mataur, a DDR, bearing No. 32 was recorded at 07:48 PM.

The Court pointed out that indisputably, no FIR or complaint was registered against him. This is reinforced by the fact that the Warrant Officer was not provided with a copy of the FIR or the memo of arrest of the detenu when he arrived at the Police Station.

"It was only at 02:26 AM on 09.03.2025 that the SHO handed over a copy of the FIR(supra) registered against the detenu along with a copy of DDR No. 32, the memo of personal search, and the memo of arrest. A perusal of the Warrant Officer's report further reveals that both the memo of personal search and the memo of arrest were signed by the Warrant Officer, along with the witnesses and the detenu, at 02:30 AM.," the judge added.

The bench opined that "Such procedural lapses are in direct contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering his custody illegal in the eyes of law."

It also took note of the total non-compliance with Section 47 of BNSS as well as violation of Article 22 of the Constitution, "as it was only after a lapse of seven hours from the detenu's initial custody that he was informed of the grounds of his arrest vide memo of arrest, that too in the presence of the Warrant Officer."

Warrant Officer Has No Adjudicatory Power To Comment On Detention 

The Court observed that the comment of the Warrant officer on the report on the legality of arrest was "beyond jurisdiction."

"Thus, this Court would also like to clarify that the role of a Warrant Officer is 'ministerial' in nature since his duty is confined toconducting a search for the person of the detenu at the said premises and examine all the material available, including contemporaneous record of the police station which may justify the custody," said the Court.

However, the Warrant Officer has no adjudicatory power to either comment or draw a conclusion with respect to the legality or illegality of the said custody, it added.

In light of the above, the Court directed to release of the detenue and declared his arrest as "illegal".

Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate (through Video Conferencing),

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate,

Mr. Harlove Singh Randhawa, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, Advocate, Mr. Jashan Bains, Advocate, Mr. Arjun S. Rai, Advocate, Mr. Gursher Singh, Advocate,

Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate,Mr. Dhruv Trehan, Advocate and Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab and Mr. Deeepender Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

 Title: Gurkaran Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 133

Click here to read/download the order