The bench ruled that “there is no hesitation in the mind of the court to reach to a conclusion that the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand dated October 4, 2023, which vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant”.
The top court reiterated the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest”. The judgment reads “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 so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer.”
Elaborating, the bench added “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”.
The apex court bench said “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.”
Prabir Purkayastha was booked under the UAPA and arrested on October 3, 2023, following a series of raids conducted in the wake of allegations made in a New York Times article that NewsClick was being paid to boost Chinese propaganda. NewsClick HR head Amit Chakraborty was also arrested by the police in the same case. Purkayastha had petitioned the Supreme Court challenging his arrest and remand after the Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to remand him to police custody.
