SACHIN SONI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anupam Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondents, and Shri Utkarsh Khanna, learned counsel for the informant - respondent No. 4.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned remand order dtd. 2/6/2024 and all subsequent remand extension orders passed by the learned Magistrate in FIR dtd. 31/5/2024 registered as Case Crime No. 252 of 2024, under Ss. 376, 323, 506, 494 IPC and Sec. 67 of the IT Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, and to direct the release of the petitioner on sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

(3.) Shri Anupam Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the core issue involved in the petition is not the merits of the allegations mentioned in the FIR but the illegality in the process of arrest and procedural lapses during the remand proceedings. He places reliance upon the arrest memo and states that it was a printed proforma which did not contain any column specifying the grounds or reasons for arrest. It is argued that neither the reasons for the arrest nor the grounds were communicated in writing to the petitioner at the time of arrest, as per mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions under Sec. 50 CrPC.