Written grounds of arrest mandatory: Orissa HC

Cuttack: The Orissa high court has held that an arresting officer’s failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is a serious procedural lapse that can justify grant of bail, even in a cybercrime case involving allegations of financial fraud.Granting bail to Rakesh Choudhury on June 24, Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed, “This court does not find anything to evidence that the arresting officer has communicated to the petitioner the grounds of arrest in writing in the language he understands.”Stressing that the requirement is both statutory and constitutional, the court observed, “The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing,” adding that the arresting officer had failed to comply with “such mandatory as well as constitutional provision ensuring to the benefit of the petitioner for grant of bail.”The statutory rule is mandated under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.The High Court was hearing Choudhury’s bail plea in connection with the Cyber Crime & Economic Offences case registered at the cybercrime police station in Cuttack. Investigators alleged that he was involved in opening fake business bank accounts using mobile phones, debit cards and other electronic instruments belonging to unsuspecting persons without their knowledge.

The prosecution claimed these “mule” accounts were used to channel illegal funds through multiple banking transactions.Holding that the procedural safeguard had been violated, the court allowed the bail application and directed Choudhury’s release on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.Advocate Durga Prasad Pattanaik argued on behalf of the petitioner, while additional public prosecutor S C Pradhan represented the prosecution.

During the hearing, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that his arrest violated Section 47 of the BNSS, which requires an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing in a language he understands. In response, the investigating officer filed an affidavit asserting compliance with the provision and produced an arrest memo.After examining the records, however, the high court found that the arrest memo was merely a printed template carrying the signatures of the petitioner and the arresting officer and did not establish that the statutory requirement had been fulfilled. “Nowhere in the affidavit has it been stated that the petitioner was communicated in writing about his grounds of arrest,” Justice Satapathy observed.