SHAILESH KUMAR Vs. ADHISHAK JANPAD KARAGAR FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. K. Mathur, J. This petition challenges the order of detention passed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner appears to have been arrested along with certain other persons on 20-3-1992 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404 and 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code. He was remanded to custody. 3 THE main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that his arrest is illegal in view of the fact that it does not comply with the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in as much as the particulars of the charge against him for which he was arrested was not communicated to him at the time of arrest. 4. It may be pointed out that Section 50 (1) requires a Police Officer to inform any person arrested by him without warrant to communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested. This provision follows the mandate of Article 22 1) of the Constitution which requires the grounds of arrest to be communicated as a person is arrested and detained in custody. 5. THE only material available on record is the entry in the general diary which merely recites that when the petitioner and other persons were arrested knew about the reasons of arrest (Karan batakar bazabta hirasat men liya ). 6 It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that this does not satisfy the requirements of Section 50 (1) of the Cr. P. C. which specifically provided for the petitioner being informed about the particulars of the offence for which he is being arrested. 7 He has also placed reliance on the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. reported in 1988 ACC 390. In this case a Division Bench of this Court interpreted the identical words holding that these did not satisfy the requirements of the particulars being informed to the person who has been arrested. This view was reiterated in the case of Hazari Lal v. Stale of U. P. , 1991 LLJ 230. In that case also in addition to what has been described to have been informed to the petitioner it was also mentioned that he was inform ed about the grounds for bail. Following the decision in the aforesaid case it was held that it did not constitute sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 50 (1) of the Cr. P. C. or Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. 8. It was urged on behalf of the opposite-parties that any person who has been arrested otherwise than in accordance with law and ordered to be released by this court may be arrested again. However, we are not going to enter into this question as it does not arise for determination in the present petition. 9. THE opposite-parties were granted time to file counter-affidavit. However, no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of arresting officer. Further time was not allowed, in view of the fact that sufficient time has been allowed earlier. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. THE petitioner shall be set at liberty immediately unless he is wanted in some other case. Petition allowed. .