MANJEET SINGH 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 Vinod Singh, 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. 26/12/2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in First Information report dtd. 15/2/2024 registered as Case Crime No.77 of 2024, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, and to direct the release of the petitioner on personal bond as the investigation is still ongoing.

(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.