The Delhi High Court emphasized the urgent need to revise arrest memos to include the grounds of arrest. It observed that updating the arrest memo format and introducing additional annexures were essential to ensure effective compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.

The court directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to take necessary steps to implement these modifications.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held, “There is an urgent need to update the Arrest Memo Forms being used… a revised arrest memo form or some annexures are to be added to ensure effective compliance with Section 50 Cr.P.C. and the corresponding Section 47 of BNSS, 2023. The Commissioner of Delhi Police may ensure that necessary actions are taken for the said modification”. 

A petition was filed challenging the legality of the petitioner’s arrest. Advocate Manu Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the arrest violated Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, as the grounds for arrest were not communicated at the time, rendering it unlawful. 

The FIR, lodged by the complainant, alleged that she had been in a relationship with the petitioner since 2019, during which she suffered abuse, coercion, and sexual assault. Sharma contended that the omission of grounds in the arrest memo made the arrest arbitrary.

However, Additional Standing Counsel Rahul Tyagi, representing the State, argued that the grounds for arrest were clearly outlined in the remand application submitted on November 5, 2024. He further stated that the petitioner had received the application, which was accepted by the Magistrate, and justified the delay in arrest due to the petitioner’s lack of cooperation in the investigation.

The court noted that “the law mandates the police officer to inform the arrested individual of the full particulars of the offence or the grounds for arrest”. 

This obligation is not merely procedural but a critical safeguard for protecting an individual’s constitutional right to liberty. Courts have consistently criticized the practice of citing generic reasons in standard proforma documents to justify arrests. Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) underscores the importance of immediacy, as the term "forthwith" mandates that the grounds for arrest be communicated at the time of the arrest itself. This ensures that individuals are promptly informed of the reasons for their detention, thereby upholding their legal and constitutional rights.

“It is relevant to note that the constitutional safeguards are incorporated in the procedural law as procedural safeguards and the Court have to be very careful and must keep in mind the constitutional frame work”, the court outlined.

Further, the Court mentioned that arrests should be made only when absolutely necessary, highlighting the fundamental importance of personal liberty and denouncing arbitrary and mechanical arrests. It emphasized that the police must not arrest individuals solely because the law allows it; arrests must be justified with valid reasons. 

The court reiterated that the grounds for arrest must be communicated immediately and in writing, reinforcing the requirement for transparency. It strongly criticized the practice of using vague or generic justifications in arrest memos, calling for strict adherence to legal and constitutional safeguards.

The lack of specific grounds for arrest was considered a violation of both statutory and constitutional rights, as outlined in Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Every individual has the fundamental right to be promptly informed in writing of the grounds for their arrest, with a copy provided without delay, ensuring their legal protections are upheld.

The court emphasized that the purpose of informing an arrested individual of the grounds for their arrest was crucial and non-negotiable. This information is the only effective way for the individual to consult with their advocate, challenge the request for police custody remand, and apply for bail.

In this case, the court noted that the arrest memo did not specify the grounds for the petitioner’s arrest. While the prosecution contended that the grounds were included in the remand application dated November 5, 2024, the court found that the grounds were not communicated at the time of arrest, constituting a clear violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C.

The court ruled that the petitioner’s arrest was illegal and ordered their immediate release, provided there were no other legal grounds for detention. The petitioner was required to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties of the same amount.

Finally, the court highlighted the necessity of revising arrest memo forms to include the recording of arrest grounds and directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to ensure the required modifications for compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. A copy of the order was sent to the Commissioner for information and implementation.