Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Shankar @ Ravi @ Ravi Shankar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210
1 MCRC-35872-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35872 of 2025
RAVI SHANKAR @RAVI @ RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anupam Verma - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35873 of 2025
RAVI SHANKAR @ RAVI @ RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anupam Verma - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for State.
Heard on : 19.08.2025
Pronounced on : 12.09.2025
ORDER
By these petitions filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners have challenged the arrest as well as subsequent remand order passed by the Magistrate/Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh.
2. The brief facts relevant to these cases are that Crime Nos.649/2024, 650/2024, 651/2024 and 652/224 were registered in the Police Station -
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 2 MCRC-35872-2025 Kotwali, District - Tikamgarh and Crime No.273/2024 was registered in the Police Station - Palera, District - Tikamgarh alleging that the petitioners by forming Lustiness Janhit Credit Co-operative Society Limited (for short "LJCCSL") company, collected the money from different persons and after that they absconded and did not return the money of investors.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners, though, has raised the grounds that LJCCSL is not a company but a multistate co-operative society that is registered under The Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and that society is under the process of winding up, hence, no proceeding can be adopted but after arguing some while, he has given a background and has submitted that he will challenged this ground separately and in present cases, he challenged only the arrest and remand of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in these cases, when the petitioners were arrested, they were not provided the legal assistance during the remand proceedings and they were not explained the grounds of arrest that are held in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs State of Andhara Pradesh reported in LAWS(SC)-2025-5-148.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that in the case of Sudhar Mangar vs. State of West Bengal reported in LAWS(CAL)-2025- 6-4, the Court has held that the accused persons has right to be provided the legal assistance during the proceedings of remand and that is mandatory as per the provision of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. and corresponding provision of Section 35 of BNSS.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that in the case Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 3 MCRC-35872-2025 o f Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in LAWS (SC)- 2024-5-46, this legal position is clarified holding that the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest are the different things and the grounds of arrest is mandatory to inform the arrested persons, the grounds of arrest in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against the custodial remand and to seek bail.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that it is the duty of remand Magistrate to ascertain whether the compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been made or not and arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. Due to non compliance of Article 22 of the Constitution of India as it is the duty of the Courts to uphold the fundamental rights and further held that if the ground of arrest is not intimated to the arrestee in writing the whole proceeding shall be vitiated and further remand proceeding shall also be vitiated and no further remand can be allowed.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in these cases, the petitioners were in the judicial custody in Lalitpur and production warrants were served and petitioners were brought to the Court and Court permitted formal arrest and after that remand was granted, hence, no grounds of arrest have been communicated in the writing to the petitioners. Hon'ble Courts in the cases of Manjeet singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State of U.P. and others reported in LAWS(ALL)-2025-4-9, Ashish Kakkar vs. Union of Territory of Chandigarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2025, Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 4 MCRC-35872-2025 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Rajnikant Ojha passed in CRM (M) 1 of 2025 and Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 516 have held that non compliance of directions vitiate the whole proceedings and the petitioners are entitled for immediate release.
9. Learned counsel for State has submitted that FIR was lodged against the petitioners and one of the co-accused Anand son of Atal Bihari was arrested and during investigation, it was found that Ravi Shankar @ Ravi @ Ravi Shankar Tiwari is the brother of Anand.
10. Learned counsel for State has submitted that the production warrant was issued by the Second Additional Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate and in compliance to that the petitioners were produced on 30.06.2025 (in Crime Nos.649/2024, 650/2024, 651/2024 and 652/2024, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Tikamgarh) and on 14.07.2025 (in Crime No.273/2024, Police Station - Palera, District - Tikamgarh) and at that time, on behalf of petitioners namely Ravi Shankar @ Ravi @ Ravi Shankar Tiwari, Aalok Kumar and Surendra Pal Singh, Advocate Shri Anupam Verma was present before the Additional Sessions Judge Court and filed his Vakalatnama/Power. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 302 of the BNSS and Police Authorities had submitted an application for arrest of the petitioners in the crime. After that petitioners were arrested and advocate of petitioners was intimated about the arrest of petitioners stating the relevant Sections of law, hence, no interference is called for.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 5 MCRC-35872-2025
11. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
12. From the record and case diaries of Crime No.652/2024 and Crime No.273/2024, it is clear that the petitioners were required in the case, hence, the production warrant was issued and on 30.06.2025 and on 14.07.2025 they were produced before the trial Court. Case diaries were submitted by the Police in the concerned Police Station, District - Tikamgarh and separate application was also filed for arrest of the petitioners. Petitioners were represented through their counsel and on the permission of Court, the petitioners were arrested. After that police authorities had applied for police remand whereas the petitioners had filed an application to not to allow the police remand and after considering the facts, the trial Court/remand Court has granted the remand. Petitioners were in police custody and on 01.07.2025 they were returned from the police remand and after that judicial remand was granted. In between, it was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that learned counsel for petitioners has not been provided the grounds of arrest in which, the trial Court/remand Court has mentioned that the advocate of petitioners was provided the copy of application to arrest the petitioners and after arrest, in writing he was intimated that the petitioners have been arrested in the case and from the documents annexed with the records, it is also clear that the advocate of petitioners was present and he was given the copy of application to arrest the petitioners and petitioners were arrested on the permission of Court and further he was intimated and was given the written information that the petitioners have been arrested and in that the relevant sections of concerned law for which violation, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 6 MCRC-35872-2025 petitioners have been arrested, is also clearly mentioned.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (Nct of Delhi), LAWS (SC)-2024-5-46 , dealing with the specific provision of Section 43 B(1) of the UAPA, in para Nos.20 and 28 has held as under:
"20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
xxx
28. Thus, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the submission of learned ASG that in a case Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 7 MCRC-35872-2025 of preventive detention, the grounds of detention need not be provided to a detenue in writing is ex facie untenable in eyes of law."
14. In the same way, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others, (2024) 7 SCC 516, in para 35 has held as under:
"35. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra), which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that the ED's Investigating Officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of the ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 8 MCRC-35872-2025 sustained."
15. In the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, LAWS (SC)2025-5-148, Hon'ble the Apex Court discussing the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS that the requirement of informing a person arrested, grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and for that purpose Section 50(1) of the Cr.P.C. was inserted in the Cr.P.C., in para No.36 has held as under :
"36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough. (See: Vimal Kishore Mehrotra (supra))."
16. The same principle is laid down in the cases of Sudhar Mangar vs. State of West Bengal, LAWS (CAL)-2025-6-4, Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, LAWS (SC)-2025-2-20, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCR 295, Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, LAWS (ALL)-2025-4-9, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Rajnikant Ojha, LAWS(CAL)-2025-4-17 and Ashish Kakkar vs. Union Territory of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44210 9 MCRC-35872-2025 Chandigarh passed in Cr.A. No.1518 of 2025.
17. In light of aforesaid enunciation of laws, in the present cases, firstly, the petitioners were produced on production warrant issued by the concerned Court and after that through an application, arrest of the petitioners was sought from the concerned remand Court/Magistrate and the copy of the arrest warrant application was supplied to advocate of petitioners Shri Anupam Verma. Furthermore, when police has arrested the petitioners, provided the intimation in writing disclosing the Sections in which the they were arrested. Advocate of petitioners was intimated and in that intimation, Sections of the concerned law were clearly mentioned and thus, it is clear that the arrest was made with the permission of Magistrate/concerned Judge. Secondly, when the petitioners were arrested, prior intimation was given to the petitioners also disclosing the Sections of law in which they are being to be arrested. Thirdly, when they were arrested, the intimation of arrest describing the Sections of crime were intimated to the advocate of petitioners.
18. Looking to these factual aspects as well as the principle laid down in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) , no substance is found in the petitions, hence, both the petitions are dismissed.
19. Copy of this order be kept in connected case for reference.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE DPS Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 12-09-2025 18:19:31