1 / 5 2025:CGHC:17134-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 191 of 2025 1 - Arman Memon S/o Ashraf Memon Aged About 18 Years old, R/o Purani Basti, Memon Mohalla, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Adnan Memon S/o Ashraf Memon Aged About 21 Years old, R/o Purani Basti, Memon Mohalla, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Kotwali, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, G.A. For Objector : Mr. S.S. Masih, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 15/04/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.19 15:16:53 +0530 2 / 5 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr. S.S. Masih, learned counsel for the objector. 3. The petitioners have filed the instant petition with the following prayer :- 1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, and set-aside the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba passed in Criminal Case No.2645/2025 (Filing No.) and further the arrest of the Petitioners followed by the consequential remand order may also be set aside and the Petitioners may be released from the custody forthwith. 2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to grant any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The brief facts of this case are that the complainant lodged an FIR alleging therein that he owns a ready-made clothing shop. On 10/03/2025 at about 6.30 PM a local resident informed him that his son had been assaulted during a fight near the old bus stand. After hearing the same, the complainant immediately rushed to the place 3 / 5 of incident and where he found that his son was injured. While he was taking his son to the police station at that time the co-accused Imran Memon abused the complainant and his son and also assaulted them. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 191, 296, 304, 351 of BNS. Thereafter, the petitioners were arrested on 10/03/2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the learned JMFC, Korba has remanded the petitioners to custody in a mechanical manner. He would next contend that the offences 115 (2), 191, 296, & 351 (2) of BNS are bailable offence wherein the maximum punishment is two years and only offence under Section 304 BNS is a non-bailable offence wherein the maximum punishment is three years, therefore, prior to arrest of the petitioners it was mandatory for the police officers to inform the grounds of arrest and also to record reasons of arrest, whereas in the present case police officers have failed to comply with the same, which is mandatory. He would also submit that no satisfactory reasons have been recorded prior to sending them to judicial custody. He would place reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 and would submit that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. 4 / 5 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order dated 11/03/2025 passed by the JMFC, Korba would show that the JMFC has recorded that the accused persons have been made known about the reasons of their arrest and there is sufficient material available against the accused persons, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not made known about the reasons of arrest is wrong, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of the order dated 11/03/2025 would show that the name of the person specified by the accused persons i.e. Mohd. Shahruk the information regarding arrest was given to the said person and the carbon copy of the same is also attached in the case. The accused persons have also engaged an advocate and on being asked the accused persons have been apprised about the reasons of arrest. Therefore, from perusal of the same it is apparent that the accused persons were informed about the reasons of their arrest. The ratio which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) would not come to the rescue of the petitioner because in the said case the appellant therein was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, whereas in the present case the person whose name was suggested by the petitioners was informed about the reasons of the arrest of the petitioners further the 5 / 5 petitioners have also engaged an advocate, therefore, it cannot said that they were unaware with the grounds of their arrest. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu