Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2023
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
31
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 sustained.