Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Mr. Goswami further raised the issue that in the present case, the accused/petitioner was caught red handed along with the contraband and thus, the ground of his arrest in connection with this case was well known to the present accused/petitioner. He further submitted that the development of rule, i.e. no person shall be detained without being informed the ground of arrest, has developed from the case of Christie & Anr. Vs. Leachinsky (1947 1 ALL ER 567). He further submitted that the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1014, is the first reported case regarding the furnishing of grounds of arrest and violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, wherein also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the decision of Viscount Simon in Christie (supra). He accordingly submitted that in case of Madhu Limaye (supra), the following observation was made:

"there is no need to explain the reasons of arrest if the arrested man is caught red-handed and the crime is patent to high Heaven."

Page No.# 6/16

11. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further submitted that the mentioning of grounds of arrest in case of a person caught red handed was never argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor was pursued or considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the judgments in cases of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576; Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254; and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. In those cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the judgments without considering the issue of necessity of informing the grounds of arrest to a person caught red handed and thus, applying the "doctrine of sub-silentio" it can be very well said that the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra), Prabir Purkayastha (supra) & Vihaan Kumar (supra) are not a precedent so far the cases where the accused person got arrested red handed.

12. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the bail prayer of the present petitioner cannot be considered at this stage on the ground of incarceration as well as on the ground of non-furnishing of the ground of arrest to the accused/petitioner. From the facts and circumstances of this case itself, it is sufficient to hold that the petitioner was well aware about the grounds when he was caught red handed along with the contraband. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami submitted that the bail prayer of the present petitioner may be rejected.

14. Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted in this regard that as per the F.I.R., it is seen that there was prior information to the Investigating Officer and hence, it cannot be said that the person caught red handed or the police officer had no time to serve Notices under Sections 50 & 50A of Cr.P.C., corresponding to Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS. He further submitted that the Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India are the inherent right of every person and non-mentioning of grounds of arrest in the Notices as well as in the Arrest Memo itself is in violation of Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mannan further submitted that in the case of Madhu Limaye (supra) though it was discussed about the issue of red handed, but the accused was enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact of violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In this context, he also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260, wherein in paragraph No. 21 of the judgment, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the rights under Articles 21 & 22 (1) of the Constitution of Page No.# 8/16 India are the inherent right of a person and there cannot be any violation of those Articles at the time of arrest of any person.