Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.35 seconds)Section 50 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Pankaj Bansal vs Union Of India on 3 October, 2023
20. From the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, it is
seen that basically there are 2 (two) issues raised in the present case, i.e. the
period of long incarceration and non-communication of grounds of arrest to the
present petitioners in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice under Section 50
of Cr.P.C. It is an admitted fact that the grounds of arrest were not
communicated to the petitioners as well as to their relatives in the Notice
Section 50 of Cr.P.C., as well as in the Arrest Memo. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the cases of Pankaj Bansal (supra), Prabir Purkayastha (supra) & Vihaan
Kumar (supra), as referred above, had discussed in detail in regards to non-
communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused persons and it is
considered in various paragraphs of the judgments that non-compliance of same
is in violation of Article 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
Section 50A in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Prabir Purkayastha vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 October, 2023
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), as
relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held in paragraph Nos. 19,
21 & 48 of the judgment as under:
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
18. Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 persons caught red
handed or the police officer had no time to serve Notice under Sections 50 of
Cr.P.C. 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 Notice 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
Page No.# 10/16
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.
Accordingly, Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it is a
fit case wherein the bail can be granted to the present accused/petitioners on
the ground of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to them in the Arrest Memo as
well as in the Notice under Section 47 of BNSS.