New Delhi, March 30, 2025: The Delhi High Court has mandated that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee in writing simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest memo or as part thereof.

The court, presided over by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, set aside a Trial Court order while allowing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), highlighting procedural lapses in the arrest process of the petitioner, Vikas Chawla alias Vicky.

The decision, delivered on March 30, 2025, underscores the importance of adhering to legal safeguards under the CrPC.

Case Background and Court’s Observations

The petitioner faced allegations of assisting an Afghan national in illegally emigrating to Spain using forged Indian identity documents, including a passport, Aadhaar Card, and PAN Card, in exchange for payment.

Initially named in a First Information Report (FIR) alongside another accused, Chawla was arrested after responding to a notice purportedly issued under Section 41-A of the CrPC.

However, the High Court found that this notice was never served, rendering the arrest procedurally flawed.

Justice Bhambhani emphasized that the grounds of arrest, which must pre-exist the arrest and be recorded contemporaneously in the police diary or a similar document, should be communicated to the arrestee without delay.

“There can be no justification for an investigating officer not to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest,” the court observed.

It rejected the practice of serving such grounds later through a remand application, noting that this violates legal requirements as remand applications are filed only when the arrestee is produced before a magistrate.

Legal Reasoning and Outcome

The court also addressed the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, clarifying that an order denying police custody remand is not interlocutory but final, making it amenable to revision.

This came after the Trial Court had cancelled Chawla’s bail, previously granted and made absolute by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, following a revision petition by the State.

Restoring the bail order, the High Court allowed Chawla’s petition on two grounds: the non-service of the Section 41-A notice and the failure to provide written grounds of arrest.

“The petition is allowed as the arrest did not comply with statutory mandates,” the court concluded, reinforcing procedural fairness in criminal proceedings.

Representation and Cause Title

Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, assisted by Advocates Vishal Gosain, Arun Khatri, Sahil Khurana, Pravir Singh, and Anushka Barua, represented the petitioner.

The State was represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, along with Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Aman Usman and Advocates Akhand Pratap Singh, Nishank Tripathi, Harshita Sukhija, and others.

Cause Title: Vikas Chawla @ Vicky v. The State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2040)

Bench: Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Party Names and Bench Details

• Petitioner: Vikas Chawla @ Vicky
• Counsel for the petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John; Advocates Vishal Gosain, Arun Khatri, Sahil Khurana, Pravir Singh, Anushka Barua
• Respondent: The State NCT of Delhi
• Counsel for the Respondent: ASG Sanjay Jain; APP Aman Usman; Advocates Akhand Pratap Singh, Nishank Tripathi, Harshita Sukhija, Samriddhi, Palak Jain, Arjit Sharma, Nikunj Bindal, Charu Sharma
• Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani (Single Bench)
• Date of Judgment: March 30, 2025