Latest news with #PrabirPurkayastha
The Hindu
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
All accused in custody can question lawfulness of arrest for non-service of reasons in writing even if they were arrested before May 15, 2024: Karnataka High Court
In a judgment with far-reaching consequences on legality of arrest and benefitting a large number of accused persons in judicial custody, the High Court of Karnataka has declared that all the accused, except habitual offenders, are entitled to claim legality of their arrest due to non-service of grounds/reasons of arrest in writing to them by the police, even if they were arrested before May 15, 2024. The High Court said the benefit of law laid down by the apex court in Prabir Purkayastha's case would be available to accused persons retrospectively, as it related to rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The apex court, in the judgment in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT) of Delhi delivered on May 15, 2024, declared that non-service of grounds/reasons in writing to a person arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act vitiates the process of arrest as it infringes upon the right of accused person to be informed about the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) (an arrested person shall be informed of the grounds of arrest and allowed to consult a lawyer of his or her choice) of the Constitution. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the order while ordering the release of 20-year-old Hemanth Datta of Arsikere in Hassan district, who was arrested on February 17, 2023, on the charge of murder. The petitioner, who is in judicial custody on rejection of his bail pleas, filed the petition in March 2025 contending that his arrest itself was illegal as no grounds of arrest were served to him by the police. The precedent Citing the judgement in Purkayastha's case, the High Court said that '... the argument against retrospective application of the principle of procedural justice enunciated in the case of Prabir Purkayastha does not hold good, more so, when the rule of beneficial construction goes beyond the realm of procedural law, and prescribes mitigation or modification of penalty in light of post facto change in substantive law.' Stating that the legal ratio enunciated in Purkayastha's case has merely expounded the pre-existing constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which has been in effect since January 26, 1950, Mr. Justice Chandangoudar said that any violation of the right to be afforded an opportunity to make an effective representation against the arrest or an order of remand in relation to any offence, shall constitute a contravention of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the statutory safeguard under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even if the arrest is made prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Prabir Purkayastha's case. Trial courts to consider Meanwhile, the High Court directed that all the trial courts in the State should consider applications for bail made by those in remand and prejudiced on account of non-service of grounds of arrest, even if the accused persons in custody were arrested prior to May 15, 2024. However, the High Court made it clear that the retrospective benefit of non-service of grounds of arrest in writing would not be available to those arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as the apex court has already clarified this aspect.
The Hindu
23-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Grounds of arrest to accused: We want to strike balance, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 22, 2025) called for striking a balance between the state machineries not misusing their powers and the accused not taking advantage of its observations to go free. A Bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih was dealing with questions, including whether it would be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest in every case, including even those arising out of offences under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. Also read: Informing accused grounds of arrest constitutional requirement: Supreme Court 'We want to strike a balance. On the one hand, we don't want the machineries to misuse their power. On the other hand, we also don't want that the accused take advantage of some of our observations and get free,' Justice Gavai observed during the hearing. The apex court said the other question that arose was if the arrest would be vitiated if in exceptional cases, on account of certain exigencies, it would not be possible to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before or immediately after the arrest. The Bench reserved its verdict on these legal questions. In February this year, the apex court, in a separate judgement, said the requirement of informing grounds of arrest to an accused was not a 'formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement'. A non-compliance by the police, it said, would amount to violation of fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution. In May last year, the top court had declared as 'invalid' the arrest of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and ordered his release. Purkayastha was arrested in a case lodged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Also read: NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha released from Tihar after getting bail In its judgement, the apex court said any person arrested over allegations of commission of offences under the UAPA or other offences has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing. On Tuesday (April 22, 2025), the Bench said the question was whether an accused, who was caught red-handed, should be permitted to get the benefit of the Court's observations on furnishing grounds of arrest. 'Should we forget all the ground realities?' the Bench asked. Some of its verdicts were misused also, it pointed out further. The counsel appearing for one of the petitioners said that furnishing the grounds of arrest to an accused was of vital importance as there was a presumption of innocence until proved guilty by a court of law. The Bench was dealing with three separate pleas arising out of the orders of the Bombay High Court. One of the pleas was filed by an accused in a BMW hit-and-run case of July 2024 in which a woman had lost her life in Mumbai. He challenged the High Court's November 2024 order which rejected his plea seeking to declare his arrest as illegal. Before the High Court, the accused raised the issue of alleged non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest before remanding him to custody. Also read | Opinion: Arrest, agencies, and criminal courts Another petition in the apex court was filed by a woman, the mother of a juvenile who was allegedly involved in the May last year Porsche car crash incident in Pune in which two persons had died. The woman was accused of allegedly switching of the juvenile's blood samples so as to establish that he was not drunk when the accident took place. She challenged in the apex court an order of the High Court which referred a batch of pleas raising the issue concerning grounds of arrest for consideration by a larger Bench. The third petition in the top court also raised the issue over the High Court's order referring the batch of pleas for consideration by a larger Bench.
