Factual allegations in an arrest memo substantially satisfy the constitutional mandate to communicate grounds of arrest.

The Petitioner was arrested without a warrant in connection with a penal offence and produced before a Magistrate for remand

The Petitioner objected to the remand, contending that "grounds of arrest" were not communicated in writing, thereby violating the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India

The Investigating Officer (IO) argued that the Petitioner was informed of the allegations and that the arrest memo contained the necessary particulars

The learned Magistrate overthrew the objection and committed the Petitioner to judicial custody

The Petitioner challenged this remand order via the present Criminal Revision, arguing that the lack of written grounds of arrest vitiated the entire proceeding

Whether the non-communication of the "grounds of arrest" in writing, as opposed to mere oral intimation or recording in an arrest memo, constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India so as to vitiate the order of remand

Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for such arrest "as soon as may be"

Interpretation of this right from Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), which establish that communication must be meaningful and include basic factual allegations

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), emphasizing meaningful communication over rigid formalism

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which eventually mandated written communication but acknowledged previous legal inconsistencies regarding the mode of delivery

The Court observed that while Mihir Rajesh Shah recently solidified the requirement for written communication, the arrest in this case occurred prior to that judgment, requiring the application of the legal position prevailing at the time of arrest

Upon perusal of the record, the Court found that the arrest memo, although using the nomenclature "reasons for arrest," contained the substantive factual allegations and the basis for the IO's belief

The Court reasoned that Article 22(1) does not strictly require a separate document captioned "grounds of arrest" if the factual foundations are clearly contained within a document (like the arrest memo) supplied to the arrestee

Furthermore, the Petitioner was represented by counsel during the remand proceedings, and no specific prejudice resulting from the alleged procedural lapse was demonstrated

The Court concluded that constitutional safeguards must be guided by substance rather than technicality, finding that the requirement of communication was substantially satisfied

The Court held that the supply of an arrest memo containing the specific factual allegations constituting the offence qualifies as substantial compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the legality of the remand and not the merits of the underlying criminal case