Grounds of Arrest Must Be Specifically and Effectively Communicated in a Language Understood by the Arrestee: Calcutta High Court Reiterates Constitutional Mandate

“Where Judicial Remand Exists, Habeas Corpus is the Only Proper Remedy; Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Challenge Arrest” - Calcutta High Court (Justice Tirthankar Ghosh)  refusing to entertain a writ petition challenging the alleged illegal arrest and custodial assault of an accused arrested under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court emphasized the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) that grounds of arrest must be “effectively communicated,” but held that where there is a judicial remand, the appropriate course of action is to file a writ of habeas corpus before a Division Bench—not to invoke the Single Bench’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.

The writ was filed by Kamala Chakraborty, mother of the accused Abhijit Chakraborty, who was arrested by officers of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station on 19 April 2025 in connection with FIR No. 21 dated 12 February 2025 under Section 69 of the BNS. The petitioner alleged that neither was the family informed of the arrest, nor were the grounds of arrest effectively communicated to the accused, thereby violating the fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

It was further alleged that Abhijit was physically assaulted in custody, and despite an application highlighting these violations, the Learned ACJM, Bidhannagar, rejected the bail plea on 28 April 2025. The petitioner therefore sought a declaration that the arrest was illegal and violative of constitutional rights, and requested action against the investigating officer for custodial violence.

The key constitutional and legal issues concerned compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees that "no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest," and whether such compliance had occurred in a meaningful way.

The Court reiterated settled law: “The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement... It is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible,” the Court recalled from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.

However, despite holding that the "grounds of arrest must be specific and not formal" and that "effective communication of grounds of arrest is indispensable," the Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition on maintainability grounds.

Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Generic

Drawing from Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], the Court noted the distinction between "reasons" and "grounds" of arrest:

“The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal... whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.”

The Court emphasized that this is not merely a procedural formality, but a substantive right that impacts the ability of the arrestee to consult counsel and seek bail.

The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] had also mandated: “To give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and statutory mandate... it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.”

Nonetheless, the Calcutta High Court clarified that though the violation of these safeguards may vitiate the arrest, the remedy for such violations cannot be sought through the present writ petition format.

Remand Order by Magistrate Bars Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226

The High Court found that since the accused had been produced before a Magistrate and remanded to custody, a writ of mandamus or certiorari could not lie. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in V. Senthil Balaji v. State [(2024) 3 SCC 51], stating:

“An order of remand by a judicial officer, culminating into a judicial function, cannot be challenged by way of a writ of habeas corpus, while it is open to the person aggrieved to seek other statutory remedies.”

Justice Ghosh observed: “The Rules of the High Court at Calcutta prescribes that a Habeas Corpus petition is to be preferred before a Division Bench. As such, the Writ Petition in its present form is not maintainable.”

The Court also quoted from Indrani Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 17573, to hold that judicial orders cannot be challenged through writs under Article 226 unless a clear jurisdictional error is shown.

Custodial Assault Allegation Relegated to Alternative Remedy

The petitioner’s plea for action against the Investigating Officer for alleged custodial torture was also denied. The Court held that:

“The allegations made are serious in nature and if true, may amount to violation of fundamental rights, but such redress must be sought through the appropriate forums under criminal and civil law, not through constitutional writs.”

The Court refused to issue any direction in this regard, observing that no exceptional circumstances had been pleaded justifying the bypassing of ordinary remedies.

No Writ Relief Maintainable Despite Grave Allegations

Justice Ghosh concluded that even if the petitioner’s concerns regarding non-compliance with constitutional requirements had merit, they were not justiciable under a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227 where judicial custody is involved.

“Where there exists a judicial order of remand and where proper statutory remedies are available, the High Court under Article 226 ought not to interfere,” the Court held.

While expressing no opinion on the merits of the constitutional claims or the allegations of custodial assault, the Court summarily dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability and advised the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum—i.e., by filing a writ of habeas corpus before a Division Bench.

This decision of the Calcutta High Court highlights a significant procedural nuance in constitutional litigation concerning arrests. While reinforcing the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest in clear, effective, and specific terms—particularly under Article 22(1)—the Court drew a firm procedural line: where a judicial remand exists, the only proper course is to approach a Division Bench with a habeas corpus petition.

Thus, despite strong constitutional arguments and serious factual allegations, procedural propriety prevailed.

Date of Decision: 09 June 2025