SHANNA ALIAS LULLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to set the petitioner Shanna alias Lulla at Liberty. The petitioner's case is that he was arrested from 'is house on 28. 8. 86 at 7 p. m. by the police personnel of Police Station Wazirgunj, Lucknow and has neither been informed of the grounds of arrest nor was produced before a Magistrate within a period of 24 hours and, therefore, his detention is illegal. Counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri P. C. Gupta, Sub-Inspector of Police of Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that he had arrested the petitioner on 31. 8. 86 (erroneously typed as 31. 1. 86) at 10. 30 a. m. for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act a-; the petitioner was found to have possessed an illicit knife. It is added that the petitioner was produced before the concerned Magistrate on the same day. During the pendency of this case, the petitioner applied for bail, he has been granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate who however asked him to furnish a personal bond and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000. 00 each. The question whether the petitioner has been arrested on 28. 8. 86 or on 31. 8. 86 is likely to affect the merits of the criminal case which may proceed against the petitioner and, therefore, we are reluctant to record any finding on that question even if a finding could be recorded within the limited scope of proceedings in a writ petition. We would not have considered it. Appropriate to grant the relief by way of writ of habeas corpus in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been granted bail. The complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail amounts are excessive may not be taken notice of by this court because he has a remedy for getting the amount reduced by a proper motion under the applica ble provisions of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure. But we find that while there is a clear and specific averment of the petitioner that he had not been informed of the offence for which he had been arrested, there is no specific denial of that case. The first affidavit of Sub-Inspector Ganga Deen as well as the fresh affidavit of Sub-Inspector P. C. Gupta only speak of the arrest of the petitioner and of his production before the Magistrate; they do not proceed further to indicate that at the time of the arrest, the petitioner I had been informed of the- reasons of this arrest. The learned State Counsel says that once the petitioner was arrested for possessing an illicit knife, as deposed to in the affidavit of Sri P. S. Gupta, the peti tioner would have known for what offence he had been arrested. That is not the correct approach to the provisions of Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that every police officer arresting any person without warrant "shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. The duty is cast upon the arresting officer to communi cate the full particulars of the offence to the person arrested; it is not for the person arrested merely to draw his own inferences. Moreover, every knife is not an illicit knife; and it cannot be safely said that because a knife was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, he should have known that his possession thereof was illegal. In this situation,, the detention of the peti tioner is illegal and the petition' must succeed. The petition is allowed and the peti tioner's detention in case Crime No. 429 of 1986 under Section 25 of the Arms Act of Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. .