Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam | 'Grounds Of Arrest Not Supplied In Writing': Allahabad HC Declares Arrest Of Two Accused In UP FIR 'Illegal'

“Thus, there being a definite non-compliance of the mandate of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that the arrest of the petitioner be declared illegal and all subsequent arrest memos be quashed and also the remand orders be set-aside,” the bench observed in its order.

Background of the matter

In connection with the same chain of events concerning the alleged Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam, an FIR was lodged in the State of Uttar Pradesh on July 30, 2023, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 473, 484, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Almost 11 months later, on June 18, 2024, Dhebar, who had been granted bail by the Chhattisgarh High Court at 9:20 PM, was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police just 20 minutes later, at 9:40 PM, in Raipur itself.

Following the arrest, the IO applied for a transit remand under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate at Raipur, which was granted for 48 hours.

Subsequently, on June 21, 2024, Dhebar was produced before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, who remanded him to judicial custody until July 1, 2024.

This occurred despite the petitioner having specifically objected to the arrest, arguing that it was in violation of Articles 19(1) and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as well as Section 50 of the CrPC, which mandates communication of the grounds of arrest.

Dhebar moved the High Court, and his plea was heard together with the petition filed by Anil Tuteja, who, although arrested separately, also approached the High Court like Dhebar, seeking a declaration that their arrests were illegal and void, and further prayed for the quashing of all subsequent remand orders.

It was the case of both the petitioners that during the arrest and thereafter, during the subsequent remand, they were never provided with the grounds of arrest, and this fact was not denied by the State in the counter affidavit.

On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that since there was a memo of arrest and the son of the petitioner–Dhebar had been informed about the arrest, the arrest could not be said to be illegal, as the reasons were known to the petitioners.

The Bench, however, was not satisfied with the State's arguments, as it noted that neither in the memos of arrest nor in the information given to Dhebar's son or in the remand orders were the grounds of arrest communicated to the petitioners.

The Court observed that, in fact, the arrest memo did not contain any column for stating the reason for arrest. Furthermore, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to oppose the custodial remand.

Thus, the Court concluded 'with some certainty' that the petitioners were never furnished with the grounds of arrest, as mandated under Section 50 Cr.P.C. (now Section 47 of the B.N.S.S.).

Thus, the bench declared their arrests as illegal, however, it refused to interfere with the charge-sheet, which has been submitted. The Court clarified that the Court may continue with the proceedings in accordance with law as per the charge-sheet.