381 corrected ba80.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.80/2025 Gaurav s/o Kishor Meshram ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through PSO PS Armori, Tahsil-Armori, District-Gadchiroli and anr ............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................... Shri Madhur Deo, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri D.V.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor (Senior Counsel) assisted by Mrs.S.S.Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for NA No.1/State. Ms.Punam Pisurde, Counsel Appointed for NA No.2/Victim. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. CLOSED ON : 11/03/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24/03/2025 1. By this application, being moved under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.91/2024 registered with the non-applicant/police station for offences punishable under Sections 366(a), 376(3), 376(2)(n) read with 34 of the IPC and under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from .....2/- Corrections, which are underlined, are carried out as per the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 26.3.2025. 2025:BHC-NAG:4212 381 corrected ba80.25 2 Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act). 2. The applicant is arrested on 1.4.2024 and since then he is in jail. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri Madhur Deo for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor Shri D.V.Chauhan for the State, and learned counsel Ms.Punam Pisurde for the victim. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the victim girl on 27.3.2024 on an allegation that victim got acquaintance with co-accused Neha Walke and said co- accused Neha Walke used to visit her house. On 2.3.2024, co-accused Neha Walke took the victim girl to Gadchiroli by bus and, thereafter, asked the victim to go with the applicant who under the promise of marriage subjected her for sexual intercourse and, thereafter, she was dropped at Armori Bus Stand. After 8-10 days, again the victim was subjected for the forceful sexual assault by the applicant. .....3/- 381 corrected ba80.25 3 On 23.3.2024, co-accused Neha Walke took the victim to Gadchiroli and she was compelled to go with the Sahil where Sahil forcefully subjected her for sexual intercourse. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the crime against the present applicant and the other co- accused. 5. The present application is filed for grant of bail on the ground that as far as evidence against the applicant is concerned, it nowhere reveals his involvement. No test identification parade was held and on the basis of the inconsistent statement, the applicant is arrested. 6. Besides the merits of the matter, the application is filed on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not followed as grounds of arrest are not informed or intimated to the present applicant. As the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not followed, the arrest itself is .....4/- 381 corrected ba80.25 4 invalid and on that ground itself the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on following decisions: 1. Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024)8 SCC 254; 2. Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr, Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.13320/2024 decided on 7.2.2025; 3. Ashok Sadarangani and anr vs. Union of India and ors, reported in (2012)11 SCC 321, and 4. Union Territory of Ladakh and ors vs. Jammu And Kashmir National Conference and anr, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State strongly objected the application and submitted that as far as merits of the matter is concerned, the victim who is 14 years girl was trafficked for seducing her for the sexual intercourse. The applicant has subjected her for the forceful sexual assault. The statement of the victim shows involvement of the applicant and at this stage nothing is on .....5/- 381 corrected ba80.25 5 record to show that there is any reason for the victim to implicate the applicant in the alleged offence. As far as ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Code and Article 22(1) of the Constitution is concerned, it is submitted that the arrest panchanama of the accused as well as the communication to the accused show that in view of Section 50-A of the Code, notice was issued to the applicant and his relatives are also informed. Thus, there is a substantial compliance of Section 50 of the Code as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution and, therefore, the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Code is not available to the applicant. 9. In support of his contentions, learned Public Prosecutor for the State placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Vicky Bharat Kalyani vs. State of Maharashtra and anr, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 193 wherein the Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to the Larger Bench. He submitted that in view of .....6/- 381 corrected ba80.25 6 the documents which are filed along with the chargesheet show the compliance of above two provisions and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 10. After hearing both the sides and perusing of the investigation papers, as far as merits of the matter is concerned, it reveals from the statement of the victim and investigating papers that co-accused Neha Walke took the minor girl at Gadchiroli and she was asked to accompany the applicant and the applicant subjected her for forceful sexual assault. The other co-accused also subjected her for the forceful sexual assault. Thus, considering the statement of the victim and other material, it sufficiently shows that the victim was trafficked for seducing her for sexual intercourse. Thus, involvement of the applicant reveals from the investigation papers. 11. Now, the another ground raised in the application is that there is non-compliance of Section 50 Code and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. .....7/- 381 corrected ba80.25 7 12. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions. 13. Section 41 of the Code deals with when police may arrest without warrant. Sub section (1) of Section 41 of the Code (Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the BNSS Act) states about when police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person subject to conditions enumerated therein. Thus, it states that a police officer can arrest a person after satisfying himself when an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than 7 years is alleged. The police officer can arrest subject to condition mentioned in Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS Act are satisfied. 14. Article 22(1) of the Constitution reads as under: “22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases- (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall .....8/- 381 corrected ba80.25 8 he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” 15. Thus clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution states that no person shall be detained in custody without being informed as to the grounds of such arrest. 16. Section 50 of the Code (Section 47 of the BNSS Act) deals with persons arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail which reads as under: “Section 50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.- (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on .....9/- 381 corrected ba80.25 9 his behalf. 17. Thus, Section 41 of the Code (Section 35 of the BNSS Act), Section 50 of the Code (Section 47 of the BNSS Act) and Article 22 of the Constitution are relevant provisions. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that there is non compliance of Section 50 as well as Article 22 of the Constitution and, therefore, arrest of the applicant is invalid. Whereas, the prosecution placed reliance on the communication to the accused issued under Section 50-A of the Code which bears the signature of the accused which states that he is arrested by PSI Jyoti Rakshe, Armori Police Station, district Gadchiroli. He is arrested vide Station Diary No.50/2024 and copy of the arrest panchanama was issued to him. In the said notice, crime number and relevant provisions are quoted showing that the offence is registered against him under the said provisions. It also states that the said information was also .....10/- 381 corrected ba80.25 10 forwarded to his father as to his arrest and he was informed as to his rights. The arrest panchanama in Clause-8 also shows that after informing him the grounds of arrest and about his legal rights, he is arrested on 1.4.2024. The station diary entry bearing No.50/2024 dated 1.4.2024 taken at 22:57 hrs shows that after receipt of the secret information, that the accused is standing at Armori Bus Stand, the police officer visited the said place, took the accused in their custody, and he was informed why he is taken into custody. His father was also intimated. The accused was also intimated in which offence he is arrested and by following the procedure and guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, he is arrested. On the basis of the above said documents, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the compliance under Section 50 of the Code and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution is complied with before arrest of the applicant. 19. Learned counsel for the applicant placed his .....11/- 381 corrected ba80.25 11 reliance on the decision in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) supra wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring the relevant provisions and relying upon the decision in the case of Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 held that the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenue in writing and in a language which he understands is imperative and essential to provide an opportunity to detenue of making an effective representation against the detention and in case, such communication is not made, the order of detention would stand vitiated as the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was violated. By referring the decision in the case of Lallubhai Jogobhai Patel vs. Union of India and ors, reported in (1981)2 SCC 427, the Hon’ ble Apex Court observed that “…. ‘Communicate’ is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the .....12/- 381 corrected ba80.25 12 “grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicating the “ground” to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the “grounds” are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed…..” The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that, “from a holistic reading of various judgments pertaining to the law of preventive detention including the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Harikisan supra , wherein, the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been interpreted, we find that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the grounds on which the liberty of a citizen is curtailed, must be communicated in writing so as to enable him to seek remedial measures .....13/- 381 corrected ba80.25 13 against the deprivation of liberty. It is further held that the language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the ‘grounds’ of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 20. The decision in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) supra further shows that the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and ors, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 laying down beyond .....14/- 381 corrected ba80.25 14 the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused appellant is noted to be rejected. In paragraph No.48 in the decision in the case Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) supra it is specifically observed that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case .....15/- 381 corrected ba80.25 15 so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime 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. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr supra also while considering Section 50 of the Code and Article 22(1) of the Constitution held that view taken in the cases of Pankaj Bansal supra was reiterated by this Court in the case of .....16/- 381 corrected ba80.25 16 Prabir Purkayastha supra. The Hon’ble Apex Court further referred the decision in the case of Lallubhai Jogobhai Patel supra. The Hon’ble Apex Court by referring various decision observed that, “compliance can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands. That is how, in the case of Pankaj Bansal supra, this Court held that the mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. However, under Article 22(1), there is no requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every person arrested to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the arrestee, as soon as .....17/- 381 corrected ba80.25 17 may be, he will not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement incorporated in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for arresting the person without a warrant exist. Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the objects stated above.” In paragraph No.14 it is further held “thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, 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. If the grounds of .....18/- 381 corrected ba80.25 18 arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22 (1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested .....19/- 381 corrected ba80.25 19 cannot remain in custody even for a second.” The Hon’ ble Apex Court, therefore, concludes as follows: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non- compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the .....20/- 381 corrected ba80.25 20 Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a .....21/- 381 corrected ba80.25 21 Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. 22. Thus, in view of the judgment in the case of Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr, statutory compliance under Section 50 as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution is mandatory. 23. These aspects are further dealt with by the Three .....22/- 381 corrected ba80.25 22 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & ors vs. Union of India and ors, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929 wherein it is observed that, “so long as the person has been informed about grounds of his arrest that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering.” 24. In the case of Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in AIR 2024 SC 220, while considering the decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & ors supra Pankaj Bansal, highlighting the utmost importance of doctrine of binding precedent in the .....23/- 381 corrected ba80.25 23 administration of judicial system, it is observed that, “in view of the aforestated proposition of law propounded by the Constitution Benches, there remains no shadow of doubt that the law laid down by the Three-Judge bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra) that Section 19(1) of the PMLA has a reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PML Act and that the said provision is also compliance with the mandate of Article 21(1) of the Constitution of India, any observation made or any finding recorded by the Division Bench of lesser number of Judges contrary to the said ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) would be not in consonance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by the Constitution Benches in cases referred above. The Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra) having already examined in detail the constitutional validity of Section 19 of PMLA on the touchstone of Article 22(1) and upheld the same, it holds the field as on the date. .....24/- 381 corrected ba80.25 24 The Hon’ ble Apex Court in Ram Kishor Arora supra in paragraph No.22 further observed that Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra), it has been categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also observed that the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, in our opinion the person asserted, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the .....25/- 381 corrected ba80.25 25 Constitution of India. 25. While concluding, the Hon’ ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishor Arora supra held that since the appellant was indisputably informed about the grounds of arrest and he having also put his signature and the endorsement on the said document of having been informed, there was due compliance of the provisions contained in Section 19 of PMLA and his arrest could neither be said to be violative of the said provision nor of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 26. In the light of the above observations, if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, notice given under section 50-A of the Code to the present applicant discloses the name of the police station, crime number and other details, which is signed by the present applicant. The arrest panchanama also shows that he was informed about his grounds of arrest and his legal rights on 1.4.2024 at the time of his arrest. The station diary entry .....26/- 381 corrected ba80.25 26 taken by the Investigating Officer vide GD No.50 is reproduced as under: “;kosGh ijh- iks-mifu-T;ksrh jk{ks fuosnu djrkr dh] iks- LVs-vkjeksjh vijk/k Ø-91@2024 dye 366¼v½] 376¼3½] 376¼2½¼n½ Hkk-na-oh- lgdye 4] 6] 8 cky-yS-vi-lj-vf/k-2012 ef/ky vVd efgyk vkjksih lg lnj xqUg;krhy ikfgts vlysyk vkjksihrkapk ‘kks/k ? The arrest panchanama also shows that he was informed about his grounds of arrest and his legal rights on 1.4.2024 at the time of his arrest. The station diary entry .....26/- 381 corrected ba80.25 26 taken by the Investigating Officer vide GD No.50 is reproduced as under: “;kosGh ijh- iks-mifu-T;ksrh jk{ks fuosnu djrkr dh] iks- LVs-vkjeksjh vijk/k Ø-91@2024 dye 366¼v½] 376¼3½] 376¼2½¼n½ Hkk-na-oh- lgdye 4] 6] 8 cky-yS-vi-lj-vf/k-2012 ef/ky vVd efgyk vkjksih lg lnj xqUg;krhy ikfgts vlysyk vkjksihrkapk ‘kks/k ? ks.ks dkeh vkEgh] iksmifu- fot; pyk[k] e-iks-gok- @2405 rksjs] iks-uk-@3131 jtuhdkar fiYysoku] pk-iks- uk-@5301 taxekoj vls feGqu iks-LVs-vkjeksjh ;sFkqu ‘kkldh; okgukus jokuk gksoqu iks-LVs-xMfpjksyh ;sFks gtj gksoqu Bk.ks nSufnauh Ø-42@2024 osG 16%15 oktrk iksgpqu ykxfyp ek-ofj”BkaP;k ekxZn’kZukr ;krhy xqUg;krhy ikfgts vlysY;k vkjksihrkapk ‘kks/k ?ks.ks dke jokuk >kyks vlrk ueqn vkjksih gs feGwu u vkY;kus iks-LVs-xMfpjksyh ;sFks ijr iksgpwu Bk.ks nSufnauh Ø- 46@2024 osG 18%01 oktrk izek.ks vkjksih u vkY;kus iks-Lvs-vkjeksjh ;sFks ijr ;sr vlrkuk xksifu; ckrehnkjkadMqu [kk=hf’kj [kcj feGkyh dh] ;krhy ikfgts vlysyk vkjksih Ø-02 xkSjo gk R;kps fe=klg vkjeksjh ;sfFky cl Fkkac.kk&;k fBdk.kh mHkk vkgs v’kh [kcj feGkY;kus lkscr vlysY;k iksyhl vf/kdkjh o iksyhl vaeynkjklg ueqn fBdk.kh tkoqu la’k;hrfjR;k mHkk vlysY;k bZlekl toG tkoqu R;kl vkEgk iksyhl vf/k- o iks-vae- ;kpk ijhp; nsoqu R;kl R;kps uko xko iRrk fopkjys o#u R;kus R;kps uko xkSjo fd’kksj .....27/- 381 corrected ba80.25 27 esJke o; 33 o”kZ jk- Qqys okMZ xMfpjksyh rk- ft- xMfpjksyh vls lkafxrys o#u vkEgk feGkysY;k ekfgrhuqlkj o ikfgts vlysY;k vkjksih uqlkj ukokph [kk=h >kY;kus R;kl ojhy nk[ky xqUg;kckcr ekfgrh nsoqu R;kl rkC;kr ?ks.;kps dkj.k letkoqu lkaxqu R;kl rkC;kr ?ksrY;kckcr R;kps lkscr vlysyk fe= ukes vjfoan oku[ksMs jk-Qqys okMZ xMfpjksyh rlsp R;kpk ofMy ukes fd’kksj Vselkth esJke o; vankts 55 o”ksZ jk-Qqys okMZ ;kaps eksckbZy Ø-9421731430 oj Qksud#u R;kauk lnj ?kVusph o R;kps eqykl xqUg;kps riklkP;k vuq”kaxkus fopkjiql dkeh rkC;kr ?ksrys ckcr ekfgrh nsoqu ueqn vkjksihl iks- LVs-xMfpjksyh ;sFks ijr tkoqu lnj ckcr uksan d#u o Bk.ks nSufnauh Ø-19%09 oktrk izek.ks jokuk gksoqu vkjeksjh ;sFks ijr ;soqu lnj xqUg;krhy fiMhrk gs vkjeksjh ;sFks ijr vkY;kus frl frP;k vkbZP;k le{k ;krhy ikfgts vlysyk vkjksih dz-2 gtj dsys vlrk fiMhrk fg frps vkbZP;k le{k ?kVusP;k fno’kh ;kl vkjksihus ek>s lkscr cGtoGh d#u ‘kkjhjhd lca/k dsys vls vksG[kqu lkafxrY;kus R;kl lnj xqUg;kr vVd dj.ks dkeh ek- mi ftYgk #X.kky; vkjeksjh ;sFkqu vVd iqoZ oS|fd; rikl.kh d#u R;kl iks-LVs-yk ijr vk.kqu r;kl nk[ky xqUg;kr vVd dj.;kr ;sr vlY;kckcr ekfgrh nsoqu ek- lOokSP; U;k;ky;kps vVdsckcrps funsZ’kukps rarksrar ikyu d#u R;kl lnj xqUg;kr vVd dj.;kr vkyh vlqu R;kps vVdsph ekfgrh R;kps oMhy ukes fd’kksj Vselkth esJke o; vankts 55 o”ksZ jk-Qqys okMZ ;kaps eksckbZy Ø-9421731430 uacjoj Qksu d#u .....28/- 381 corrected ba80.25 28 vVdsckcrph ekfgrh nsoqu R;kps vVdslac/kkus iks-LVs-yk miyC/k vlysY;k vfHkys[kkoj ?ksowu R;kl jk=hps tso.kkph] ik.;kph] >ksi.;kph rlsp ;ksX; fgQktrh xkMZ useq.k iq#”k dksBMhr can dj.;kr vkys- djhrk uksan-” 27. Thus, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr supra wherein it is observed that if the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. 28. In view of the above observations, in the present case, the station diary entry specifically shows reasons as to the arrest of the applicant and the notice was given to the applicant informing the crime number, the provisions of law which are applied against him, the information that his relatives are informed and Clause-8 of arrest panchanama .....29/- 381 corrected ba80.25 29 mentioning that grounds of arrest are communicated to the applicant and station diary entry to that extent is sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the Code. Since the applicant was informed about the grounds of arrest and he also puts his signature on the said notice, there is a due compliance of the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Code and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 29. In view of the requirement of informing the person arrested, which is held by the Hon’ ble Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr, the same is not a formality, but a mandatory constitutional requirements. It further states that the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. The Hon’ble Apex Court further clarified that under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, there is no requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing. The purpose of Article 22(1) of the Constitution is that the right .....30/- 381 corrected ba80.25 30 of every person arrested to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by an advocate. The said purpose appears to be fulfilled as sufficient information by giving the notice to the applicant. There is a sufficient compliance by taking entry in the station diary also. 30. In this view of the matter, the ground of non- compliance of Section 50 of the Code and Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not available to the present applicant and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected. 31. Fees of learned counsel Ms.Punam Pisurde appointed for the victim be quantified and the same be paid to her as per Rules. Application stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! ...../-