-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
"When Law Requires an Act to Be Done in a Particular Manner, It Must Be Done in That Manner Only" — Court Emphasizes on Right to be Informed Under Article 22(1) - Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner, stressing that the fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was violated when he was arrested without being properly informed, in writing, of the grounds of his arrest. This judgment strengthens procedural safeguards for arrested persons and reiterates strict compliance with constitutional mandates.
Somnath Banerjee, the petitioner, was implicated in Tamluk Police Station Case No. 894/24 dated 10.10.2024 under Sections 336(1)/336(2)/338/340(2)/318(4)/316(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. His counsel contended that he was falsely implicated, was not the principal offender, and was not even present at the location of the alleged offence, as per the FIR.
The primary grievance raised was that at the time of arrest, the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest in accordance with the legal mandate laid down in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.
The case revolved around whether the arrest of the petitioner violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that a person arrested must be informed "as soon as may be" of the grounds of arrest.
The Court, after perusing the Memo of Arrest, categorically observed: "We do not find any whisper in the printed form of Memo of Arrest indicating that the petitioner was informed about the ground of arrest."
Quoting Prabir Purkayastha, the Bench underscored: "Any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest."
Further referring to Vihaan Kumar, the Court reiterated: "Even alleged oral communication of grounds of arrest or through any other indirect mode would not suffice. When the law dictates one thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only."
The State’s contention that oral communication was sufficient under Article 22(1) was decisively rejected.
Finding a clear violation of constitutional and procedural rights, the Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to bail. It held:
"Non-compliance of such provision is sufficient to hold that the arrest made without informing the concerned person the grounds of arrest was in utter violation of the law postulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court."
The petitioner, Somnath Banerjee, was granted bail on the following conditions:
Bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of ₹50,000 each.
One surety must be a local resident.
The petitioner must not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Restricted movement: the petitioner must stay within the jurisdiction of Madhyamgram Police Station except for attending court.
Weekly reporting to the Investigating Officer.
The Court also made it clear: "If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be cancelled by the concerned court without further reference to the Hon’ble Court."
Through this judgment, the Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that fundamental rights under Articles 20, 21, and 22 must be zealously protected. The procedural rigor mandated for arrests is not a mere formality but a sacrosanct guarantee for personal liberty. Arrests not conforming to these standards would be deemed illegal.
Date of Decision: 25th April 2025
