VIKRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference to the Full Bench arises out of a bail application which came for consideration before a learned Single Judge. The ground for release of the applicant on bail, as pressed on his behalf was that at the time of arrest,the applicant was not disclosed the full particulars and the grounds of his arrest, hence the arrest was illegal being in violation of Section 50 of the Cr. P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The applicant has filed his affidavit in support of his case that particulars of the offence were not disclosed to him, nor the grounds of arrest.

(2.) As against the above, on behalf of the prosecution, the arresting officer has filed his affidavit stating about the arrest of the applicant in Crime Cash No. 262/93 under Section 307/324/302 I.P.C. and that the accused was told the grounds of his arrest. According to the prosecution, after his arrest the applicant had confessed having committed the crime and furnished information leading to recovery of a knife said to be used in commission of the offence. A recovery memo was also prepared and a copy of the same was given to him. A copy of the G.D. entry was also filed along with counter-affidavit.

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that in number of cases, affidavits given by arresting officers stating that he had informed the grounds of arrest as well as full particulars of the offence to the accused, have not been accepted by the Courts, more so where the G. D. Entry, if available, would not indicate as to what particulars or grounds were informed to the accused. A few single Judge Judgements as well as Divisions Bench decisions have been cited by the learned single Judge. On the other hand, in some decisions of the Division Bench it has been found that an affidavit filed by arresting officer giving out that he had informed all the particulars of the offence and the grounds of arrest, would be sufficient to show that the requirement was fulfiled. The decisions supporting the former view, as considered by the learned single Judge are : Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 1987 LLJ 2731, Subhash Bhandari v. State of U.P., 1986 LLJ 271, Ram Chandra alias Munai v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, 1982 LLJ 160, Hazari Lal v. State of U.P., 1991 LLJ 230, Shanna alias Lulla v. State of U.P., 1986 LLJ 209, and the case of Vimal Kishore v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 All 56 : (1956 Cri LJ 13). The State, on the other hand, placed reliance in support of the letter view, upon the decision in the case of Ram Chandra Srivastava v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, 1992 L Cri R 39. It is a Division Bench decision, accepting the entries made in the G.D. and the affidavit of the arresting officer to hold that the requirement of law was complied with. The next case relied upon was Rama Kant v. State of U.P., 1988 LLJ 118, on the same point.