Delhi High Court
Divesh Rawat vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 August, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17th July, 2025
Pronounced on: 12th August, 2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18036/2025
DIVESH RAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chirag Madan, Ms. Ravleen
Sabharwal, Mr. Sai Krishna Kumar,
Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Ronit Bose,
Mr. Akash Kamal & Ms. Rachael Tuli,
Advs.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl.) for
the State with Mr. Arijit Sharma &
Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advs.
SI Parmod Kumar, P.S. Crime Branch,
NDR.
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. A. Pratap Singh Ruddy, Ms.
Rudrali Patil, Ms. Usha Jamwal, Ms.
Harshita Chaturvedi & Ms. Rushika,
Advs. for the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 1 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,1 has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, seeking declaration of his arrest on
15.06.2025 in FIR No. 29/2025, under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,2 registered at P.S. Crime Branch as non-est
and illegal and setting aside of remand orders passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class in connection with the aforesaid FIR, post the arrest of
the present petitioner.
2. The petitioner has relied upon the following list of dates and events
leading to the filing of the present petition: –
• On 29.01.2025, the aforesaid FIR No. 29/2025, under Sections
318(4)/316(2)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023, was registered at P.S. Crime
Branch;
• On 31.01.2025, a Complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS along
with Section 175(3) of the BNSS was filed by Petitioner against Sharat
Bhattatiripad and Pankaj Tyagi, seeking directions to the police to1
For short, ‘BNSS’
2
For short, ‘BNS’Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 2 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
investigate into offences committed by the Complainant in the
aforesaid FIR, Sharat Bhattatiripad, and Pankaj Tyagi;
• On 06.02.2025, at around 06:36 PM while petitioner’s father was at his
home, two people in civil dress, carrying a gun, came to his residence
and claimed to be police officials. The said officials forcefully entered
the premises of the petitioner and served a copy of the notice under
Section 35(3) of the BNSS for joining the investigation at 6 PM on the
same day and the petitioner’s father was taken to the police station and
his statement was recorded. Furthermore, the petitioner’s father was
served another notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to be present for the
investigation on 07.02.2025 at 11 AM;
• On 07.02.2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 175(3)
of the BNSS, seeking a court-monitored investigation, presence of a
lawyer during course of the investigation and the preservation of the
CCTV footage dated 06.02.2025 of PS Crime Branch and the learned
CJM was pleased to issue notice to the Investigating Officer to file a
reply to the said application;
• From 08.02.2025 to 13.02.2025, Investigating Officer deliberately did
not file a reply before the court and sought adjournment;
• On 17.02.2025, Investigating Officer filed a reply to the Application
without serving a copy to the Petitioner and the said reply has noSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 3 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
allegation pertaining to the Petitioner whatsoever, in relation to his role
in the alleged offence;
• On 21.02.2025, Investigating Officer seized the laptop of petitioner
without providing a seizure memo;
• On 22.02.2025, notice under Section 94 of the BNSS is served upon
the petitioner for production of documents pertaining to his mother;
• On 25.02.2025, petitioner’s father filed writ petition, W.P. (CRL.)
672/2025, seeking quashing of FIR No.29/2025, dated 29.01.2025,
under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/61(2) of the BNS, registered at PS: Crime
Branch (Delhi);
• On 27.02.2025, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue notice in the
aforesaid petition, W.P. (Crl.) 672/2025;
• On 28.02.2025, Investigation Officer refused to receive documents
from the Petitioner;
• On 03.03.2025, learned JMFC directed the registration of an FIR at PS
Connaught Place, under Sections 120, 127, 135, 351(3) read with
Section 3(5) BNS, against the Complainant, Sharat Bhattatiripad, and
Pankaj Tyagi;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 4 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
• On 04.03.2025, the Petitioner and his father filed another petition,
W.P.(CRL.) 778/2025, for transfer of the investigation pertaining to
FIR No. 29/2025 dated 29.01.2025, under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/61(2)
of the BNS, registered at PS: Crime Branch (Delhi);
• On 06.03.2025, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue notice in the
petition, W.P. (CRL.) 778/2025, seeking transfer of investigation and
further directed the Investigating Officer to ensure that the notices to
join investigation were given in writing 24 hours in advance;
• On 29.03.2025, Investigating Officer filed a fresh status report before
the learned CJM conceding to the prayers of the father of the Petitioner;
• On 14.06.2025, notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was served to the
Petitioner to join investigation on 15.06.2025 at 11 AM at Crime
Branch, NDR, RK Puram;
• On 15.06.2025, the Petitioner arrived at PS Crime Branch and was
detained from 11 AM and was formally arrested at 23:44 hours;
• On 16.06.2025, the Petitioner was produced before the learned Duty
JMFC, and vide order of the even date, learned duty JMFC remanded
the petitioner to 2 days of police custody;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 5 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
• On 18.06.2025, the Petitioner was again produced before the learned
Duty JMFC, and vide order of the even date, learned Duty JMFC
remanded the Petitioner to another 2 days of police custody;
• On 20.06.2025, the Investigating Officer sought further remand of the
petitioner; however, the said application was dismissed and the
petitioner was sent to judicial custody vide order of the said date;
• Hence, the present petition.
3. The petition has been filed on the following grounds: –
a) The petitioner produced before the learned Duty JMFC after more
than 24 hours of his arrest: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that on 14.06.2025, petitioner was served with a notice under Section
35(3) of the BNSS to join investigation on 15.06.2025 at 11:00 AM. It
is submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had arrived at
P.S. Crime Branch on 15.06.2025 at about 11:00 AM. It is however,
submitted that he was detained thereafter and was only arrested and
produced before learned Duty JMFC on 16.06.2025 at 03:30 PM,
which is more than 24 hours, after he was detained. It is submitted that
the physical custody of the petitioner was taken over by Crime Branch
at about 11:00 AM on 15.06.2025 and has been produced as pointed
out hereinbefore learned Duty JMFC on 16.06.2025 at 03:30 PM and
thus, the arrest is illegal in terms of Section 58 of the BNSS and ArticleSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 6 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
22(2) of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on para 6
of Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma 3 , to urge that
period of 24 hours have to be calculated from the time when physical
custody of the accused is taken over by the Investigating Authority. It is
further submitted that the arrest memo placed on record shows the
arrest of the petitioner on 15.06.2025 at 23:44 hours.
b) The petitioner was not served the grounds of arrest: Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits as per the case of the respondent, he
was formally arrested at 11:44 PM on 15.06.2025 and as per the arrest
memo, the grounds of arrest were given separately. However, grounds
of arrest and reasons of arrest were supplied to the petitioner only on
16.06.2025 in Court just before his remand hearing. It is further
submitted that the copy of the grounds of arrest supplied to the
petitioner was an unsigned copy and does not even bear the signature of
the petitioner or his family members. Similarly, it is argued that the
time of supply of grounds of arrest has not been mentioned in the said
document. It was additionally urged that the time as claimed by the
respondent in the status report filed in the present case has surfaced for
the first time and there is no such record in the remand applications or
in the remand orders dated 16.06.2025, 18.06.2025 and 20.06.2025.
Reliance has been placed on Marfing Tamang v. State4 , to urge that
supplying of grounds of arrest just before remand hearing cannot said
to be in compliance of Section 50 of the CrPC and must be supplied
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 240
4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 548
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 7 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
forthwith, i.e., simultaneously or immediately upon the arrest of a
person.
c) Family of the petitioner has not been supplied with the grounds of
arrest: Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the grounds of
arrest has not been supplied to the family of the petitioner and no
signature of the petitioner or any of the family members are there on
grounds of arrest that has been filed by the respondent before this
Court. Reliance was placed on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana5,
on supplementary opinion in para-2, that the grounds of arrest have to
be supplied to the family of the accused as well to enable them to
secure release of the detained person at the earliest. It was submitted
that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the family of the
petitioner and an unsigned copy was only given to the petitioner one
hour before the remand hearing, and thus, the same is in complete
violation of the principles laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and
Section 48 of the BNSS.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State has
placed on record a status report, wherein it is stated that the present petitioner
has been accused of luring and inducing the complainant in the present FIR to
invest his hard-earned money and saving amounting to Rs.1,24,63,699/- by
way of conspiracy and making forged documents or electronic record. It is the
case of the prosecution that the petitioner had represented himself to be
5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 8 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
engaged in the business of trading in stocks/shares, futures and options and
financial activities with the aim of yielding high returns from investment
through his sole proprietorship concern namely, DD Enterprises. It is further
recorded in the status report that there are other complainants, apart from the
complainant in present FIR, who have also filed written complaints to the
Investigating Officer against the petitioner.
5. As per the status report, the petitioner was served with the notice under
Section 35(3) of the BNSS to appear at Officer of Crime Branch, NDR, on
15.06.2025 at about 11:00 AM. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner
joined the investigation with his father in the present case. The petitioner, as
per the respondent/State, was interrogated thoroughly and since he did not
cooperate with the investigation, he was subsequently arrested. Various other
incriminating evidence have been placed on record by way of status report.
However, since the grounds taken by the petitioner are legal in nature, this
Court does not need to examine the same. It is further stated in the status
report that during course of interrogation, the petitioner was allowed to go
with his father for lunch and had returned to office after one and a half hour
after lunch. As per the status report, the grounds of arrest in the present case
were conveyed to his father, who was present in the office of the Crime
Branch and he has signed on the arrest memo. As per the status report, the
Investigating Officer took the receipt from the petitioner on the copy of
grounds of arrest. It was contended that the copy of the same which was
supplied to the petitioner was unsigned and the signed copy was kept with the
Investigating Officer as an acknowledgement of receipt and intimation. It is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 9 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
further recorded that, thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the
learned Duty JMFC on 16.06.2025 and the Investigating Officer was given 2
days’ police custody remand after hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Subsequently, further two days’ remand was also obtained vide
order 18.02.2025 and on 20.06.2025, the petitioner was produced before the
learned JMFC seeking further 3 day’s police custody remand, however, the
said application was rejected and the petitioner was sent to judicial custody on
27.06.2025.
6. During course of hearing, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.)
was put a query with regard to the averments in the status report that the
petitioner had gone out with his father for lunch and thereafter an additional
affidavit dated 07.07.2025 was filed by Sub-Insp. Pramod Kumar, P.S. Crime
Branch, New Delhi. In the said affidavit, it is recorded as under: –
“2. In compliance of the Notice U/s 35 (3) BNSS dated I4.06.2025, the
Petitioner namely Divesh Rawat came to the Office of NDR Crime
Branch with his father Dharmender Singh Rawat at 11 :00 AM on
15.06.2025.
3. That the Petitioner joined the investigation in the IO room of NDR
Crime Branch and his father Dharmender Singh Rawat went out from the
office of Crime Branch.
4. At about or around 1 :30 PM, the petitioner sought to have lunch and
thus went out for lunch as his father Dharminder Singh Rawat was also
waiting outside Office NDR Crime Branch.
5. At 02:22 PM, the deponent made a phone call from his mobile
No.9582639912 to the father of the Petitioner namely Dharminder Singh
Rawat on his Mobile No. 9818128127 asking about their whereaboutsSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 10 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
and when petitioner would come back from lunch. The father of the
Petitioner stated that they are outside for lunch and will be coming back
soon.
6. The Petitioner Divesh Rawat alongwith his father Dharmender Singh
Rawat came back to the Office NDR Crime Branch at about 02:30PM.
7. That the father of the Petitioner namely Dharmender Singh Rawat
made a phone call at 02:38PM from his Mobile No. 9818 128127 to the
Deponent’s Mobile No.9582639912 stating that they have reached the
Office NDR Crime Branch. Thus the petitioner joined the investigation
immediately upon reaching the Office NDR Crime Branch.
8. It would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner [His Mobile No.
8448579969] and his father Shri Dharminder Singh Rawat [his Mobile
No. 9818128127j were in contact with each other on 15.06.2025,
Dharminder Singh Rawat was waiting/sitting outside Office NDR Crime
Branch. The call details are as follows :-
S.NO. TIME OF CALL
CALL DURATION
1. 11:25:31 09 Seconds
Hours
2. 13:13:26 17 Seconds
Hours
3. 14:34:35 SMS
Hours
4. 14:38:08 10 Seconds
Hours
5. 14:39:09 09 Seconds
Hours
6. 16:23:19 25 Seconds
Hours
7. 18:45:04 56 Seconds
Hours
8. 18:47:01 45 Seconds
Hours
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 11 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
9. 20:22:17 14 Seconds
Hours
10. 20:55:03 71 Seconds
Hours
11. 21:30:21 07 Seconds
Hours
12. 21:53:06 11 Seconds
Hours
13. 22:19:53 71 Seconds
Hours
14. 22:37:51 38 Seconds
Hours
9. Thus, at 11 :44 PM on 15.06.2025, the Petitioner was arrested and was
produced before Ld. Duty JMFC at about or around 02:30PM on
16.06.2025.”
7. On the basis aforesaid affidavit, it is argued by learned Additional
Standing Counsel that there was no physical restraint on the petitioner while
he was at P.S. Crime Branch and after interrogation, he was arrested at the
time given on arrest memo and produced within 24 hours before learned
JMFC on 16.06.2025 at 02:30 PM. It is also submitted that, in the arrest
memo, it is recorded that the grounds of arrest have been separately given and
there is also an acknowledgement by the father of the petitioner with regard to
receiving the said arrest memo along with the documents. The arrest memo
dated 15.06.2025 placed on record is reproduced hereinunder: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 12 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 13 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 14 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
8. The grounds of the arrest filed along with the status report along with
the signature of the petitioner are reproduced as under: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 15 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 16 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
9. In view of the aforesaid factual context, it is urged that the there is no
illegality in the arrest of the petitioner as he was produced within 24 hours of
his arrest and the grounds of arrest were also provided to the petitioner and his
family members.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant
submits that there has been no violation of any constitutional right of the
petitioner. Reliance was placed upon Roshan Beevi & Ors. v. Joint
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 6 , particularly on the
following paras: –
“3. The relevant portion of the judgment in Kaisar Otmar’s
case (1981 Cri LJ (NOC) 208) which led to this reference to this
Full Bench, reads thus:–
“Our legal system does not require that an arrest should be
attended with any ritual of even that it should be ostentatious. It
is not necessary that a man in order to get arrested should be
taken prisoner; nor does the law regard as arrest only the
ceremonial hand-cuff or menacle. An authority is said to arrest
another man if it prevents the latter from willing his movements
and moving according to his will. Under enlightened modern
conditions it seldom becomes necessary for any police officer or
other authority empowered to make arrests to actually seize or
even touch a person’s body with a view to his restraint. Utterance
of a guttural word or sound, a gesture of the index finger or hand,
the sway of the head or even the flicker of an eye are enough to
convey the meaning to the person concerned that he has lost his
liberty.”
*** *** *** 6 1983 SCC OnLine Mad. 163 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 17 of 48 Signing Date:12.08.2025 19:23:11
5. In order to answer the reference, the following questions are
framed for consideration:
(1) When is a person said to be under arrest?
(2) Are the terms ‘custody’ and ‘arrest’ synonymous?
(3) Are the customs officials vested with powers under the
Customs Act, 1962 to detain any person for any period and at any
place for the purpose of an inquiry, interrogation or
investigation?
(4) Will the detention of a person by the customs officers for the
purpose of inquiry, interrogation or investigation, amount to an
‘arrest’ of the said person?
(5) Is detention of a person by the customs officers for the
purpose of inquiry or interrogation or investigation beyond 24
hours without producing him before a Magistrate, violative of
Article 22 of the Constitution of India?
*** *** ***
16. From the various definitions which we have extracted above, it
is clear that the word ‘arrest’, when used in its ordinary and natural
sense, means the apprehension or restraint or the deprivation of
one’s personal liberty. The question whether the person is under
arrest or not, depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on
whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go where he
pleases. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected
with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody
of another person under authority empowered by law, for the
purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or
of preventing, the commission of a criminal offence. The essential
elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there
must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a
seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law,
which so understood by the person arrested. In this connection, a
debatable question that arises for our consideration is whether
the mere taking into custody of a person by an authority
empowered to arrest would amount to ‘arrest’ of that person and
whether the terms ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’ are synonymous.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 18 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
11. Reliance was further placed on Gautam Thapar v. Directorate of
Enforcement,7 particularly on the following paras: –
“15. A bare perusal of Section 17(1) and Section 18(1) would show
under Section 17(1) the officer authorised in its behalf, has only an
information in his possession whereupon he has a reason to believe
that any person has committed any act of money laundering etc.
Then such person can be searched and his properties/documents can
be seized; per Section 18(1) which gives power to search such
person if there are reasons to believe he has secreted about his
person or anything under his possession, ownership or control, any
record or proceeds of crime which may be useful for or relevant to
any proceedings under this Act. It is only thereafter per Section
19(1) of the Act, if the officer has collected sufficient material then
on the basis of material in his possession with a reason to believe
such person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this
Act, the officer may arrest such person and shall inform him of
grounds for his arrest.
16. Thus the arrest is only under Section 19(1) of the Act after the
formalities under Section 17(1) and Section 18(1) are complete viz.
the search and seizure is made and the officer has in his possession
the material to proceed further. Once the person is arrested under
Section 19(1) he needs to be produced before the Special Court
within twenty four hours per Section 19(3) of the Act. Section
19(3) rather clarifies it is only after the arrest is made under Section
19(1), the person needs to be produced within twenty four hours
before the Court.
17. Admittedly, in this petition there is no challenge to this scheme
of the Act hence the petitioner cannot allege his arrest made by
following the above procedure is illegal. Admittedly per facts, the
officers on the basis of information per Section 17(1) had entered
the building at 8.30 AM; conducted search per Section 18(1) till 37
2021 SCC OnLine Del 4599Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 19 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
PM and recorded statements till 7.55 PM and then arrested him per
Section 19(1) of the Act. The petitioner was thus produced within
24 hours before the court from the time of his arrest under Section
19(1) of the Act, per Section 19(3) of the Act. Hence the petition
has no merit. It stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, also
stands disposed of.”
12. The reliance was placed on the aforesaid judgments to argue that it is
the physical custody which is the requirement of producing the accused
within 24 hours and in the present case, as pointed out by the respondent/State
in the status report, the petitioner was never in any physical custody before his
arrest at the Crime Branch when he joined investigation.
13. In addition, reliance was placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court at Amravati in Kesireddy Upender Reddy v. The State
of Andra Pradesh and Ors.8, particularly on the following paras: –
“13. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana case, neither the detenue
nor his relatives or family members had been served with any
document. In such circumstances, as can be seen from the same
passage, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in the absence of
service of the remand report, mere inclusion of grounds of arrest in
the remand report would not be sufficient compliance of Article 22
of the Constitution of India or Section 47 of BNSS. In the present
case, the Special Judge had recorded that the remand report had
been served on the detenue and the copy of the remand report,
containing the signature of the detenue, produced by the
respondents would also fortify this position. Sri. P. Sudhakar Reddy
contends that papers were served on the detenu after the hearing in8
2025 SCC OnLine AP 1989Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 20 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
the remand application and as such, there is no compliance of
Article 22 of the Constitution of India. This contention does not
appear to be correct inasmuch as the Special Judge had recorded, in
the remand order, that the remand report had been served on the
detenue. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the order of remand.”
14. Reliance was placed upon the aforesaid judgment to show that in the
present case as well the learned Duty JMFC had recorded that the remand
report was served on the accused/petitioner and as pointed out by the
respondent/State, the grounds of arrest have already been informed, therefore,
there is no violation of principle laid down by Vihaan Kumar (supra). It is
pointed out that the aforesaid judgment was carried in appeal by the petitioner
therein before the Hon’ble Supreme Court way of Special Leave Petition and
the said petition was dismissed by observing that the requirements in terms of
para 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) have been fulfilled9.
15. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record
written synopsis and submitted that the affidavit dated 07.07.2025 filed by the
Investigating Officer should be discarded as the same is contradictory and has
suppressed the material facts. It was submitted that stand taken by the
Investigating Officer that the petitioner was never under continuous restrain
of the Crime Branch was never taken during the process of remand
proceedings before the learned JMFC either on 16.06.2025 or 20.06.2025. In
these circumstances, the claim that the petitioner had gone out for lunch is an
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 21 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
afterthought by the investigating authorities to coverup their lapse. It is further
argued that the respondent cannot take benefit of their own violation of not
having footage of CCTV camera installed in the police Station which is in
complete violation of judgment of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and
others10, (paras 15-19). It is also argued that as per the affidavit filed by the
Investigating Officer, the petitioner was in contact with his father on 14
occasions. However, in the status report filed earlier, it is stated that during
personal search no article was found during the personal search of the present
petitioner. It was also urged that the mobile number mentioned in the said
affidavit does not belong to the petitioner and was, in fact, of his mother. It is,
thus, argued that there is no explanation forthcoming as to why if the mobile
phone is with the petitioner the same has not been seized during his personal
search. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer has not explained as to
why he called the father of the petitioner, when he knew that the petitioner
was carrying a phone as per his own version. It is further argued that without
any footage and log book entry, the Investigating Officer in the affidavit has
stated that the petitioner and his father came at 02:30 PM and further at 02:38
PM, father has simultaneously called the Investigating Officer as well his son,
which is unbelievable and raises serious doubts about the affidavit in
question. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer in his affidavit
has not stated or given any location of mobile number mentioned therein as
well as his own number, however, to deceive and mislead this Court, a status
report dated 10.07.2025 was filed by Insp. Rampal stating that the location of
the petitioner and his father was Government Land, MBTS Location, Near
Govt. Qtr. No. N179 to N362 and Opposite to CPWD Gate No. 02, Sector-09,
10
(2021) 1 SCC 184
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 22 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
R.K. Puram, Post Office-Sec-09, Police Station R.K. Puram, New Delhi, but
it neither has a location of the Investigating Officer nor it has been stated as to
how far the said location is from Crime Branch. It is further argued that, even
if, the version of the Investigating Officer is believed to be true that the
petitioner was in touch with his father on the phone, he was still under
restraint and his personal liberty was curtailed from 11:00 AM on 15.06.2025.
16. Reliance was further placed upon a judgment of Division Bench of
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. State of
Maharashtra11.
17. It was submitted that reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the
complainant on the judgments of Roshan Beevi (supra) and Gautam
Thapar (supra) is misplaced as in Roshan Beevi (supra), the matter is of
COFEPOSA Act, 1974, under which the Custom Officers are not police
officers and similarly, judgment in Gautam Thapar (supra) relates to PMLA
provisions. So far as the grounds of arrest are concerned, it is argued that the
documents annexed with the status report is also manipulated as the grounds
of arrest were given to the petitioner before the hearing of remand did not
bear petitioner’s signatures. Thus, the documents annexed with the status
report has been created as an afterthought. It was also argued that non-supply
of grounds of arrest to the relative have again taken by various High Courts as
11
2025: BHC-AS:26329-DB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 23 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
a violation of the fundamental rights and reliance was placed on the following
judgments: –
1. Smt. Sujata W/o Vilas Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, thr.
PSO PS Awadhoot Wadi, Yavatmal, Tahsil and District
Yavatmal12;
2. Lalit Phukon v. State of Assam13;
3. Riyajul Sarkar v. State of Assam & Anr.14;
4. Sapidul Islam Alias SK v. State of Assam15;
5. Gias Uddin v. State of Assam16;
6. Nachimuddin SK v. State of Assam17;
7. Gagan v. State (NCT of Delhi)18;
8. Ajit Atmaram Apraj v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.19;
9. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh20;
18. It is further argued that the grounds of arrest are different than the
grounds of arrest given in the remand application, and therefore, the same
vitiates the requirements of grounds of arrest.
19. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
12
2025:BHC-NAG:6601
13
2025:GAU-AS:5408
14
2025:GAU-AS:4957
15
2025:GAU-AS:5854
16
2025:GAU-AS:5694
17
2025:GAU-AS:5711
18
2025 SCC OnLine Del 1299
19
Order Dated 02.06.2025 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 8704/2025
20
(2021) 1 SCC 184
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 24 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
20. The relevant facts and sequence of events necessary for adjudication of
the present petition are under: –
a. The present FIR No. 29/2025 was registered on 29.01.2025, under
Sections 318(4)/316(2)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023, at P.S. Crime Branch.
b. After registration of the FIR, it is the case of the petitioner himself that
he had moved an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS on
07.02.2025 seeking Court Monitored investigation before the Court of
competent jurisdiction. Reply dated 29.03.2025 to the said application
was filed by the respondent/State, which is reproduced hereinunder: –
“Most respectfully, it is submitted that on 16.01.2025 a complaint
of Sh. Sharat Bhattatiripad R/O 18, Link Road, Ground Floor Rear,
Jangpura Extension, Jangpura, New Delhi was received at Crime
Branch, NDR vide Dy. No. 01/C dated 16.01.2025. In his
complaint the complainant alleged that one Mr. Divesh Rawat by
way of criminal conspiracy, making of false documents forgery,
forged documents or electronic record and using it as genuine etc.
lured and induced him to invest his hard earned money and savings
and took 1,24,63,699/- INR from complainant and his family. He
further alleged that the alleged Mr. Divesh Rawat had approached
him in year 2020 through a common acquaintance Mr. Pankaj
Tyagi representing to be engaged in the business of trading in
stocks/shares, future and options and financial activities
purportedly investing in various financial securities etc. with an aim
of yielding high returns from investments through his sole
proprietorship concern DD Enterprises with his father also playing
an active role in the day-to-day activities of D.D. Enterprises. The
alleged Divesh Rawat initially promised assured regular returns @
3-4 % per month upon investment and showed to have been
regularly investing in the stock market and other securities from hisSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 25 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
own demat account and other platforms, yielding him high returns
on investment. The alleged allured the complainant, his wife Mrs.
Sonal Kalra and aunt of his wife namely Ms. Usha Wadhwa and
several other respectable and high worth citizens to transfer their
money as funds towards investment to ‘the current bank account of
DD Enterprises bearing no. 50200041640864 maintained in HDFC
Bank Ltd. purportedly to be invested in share market, securities and
financial instruments and getting assured returns on the corpus and
an assured repayment of total principal. The alleged person
promised the complainant to pay 3 % returns per annum on every
5th day of the month.
In September, 2021 alleged Divesh Rawat approached to the
complainant and requested to refer more investors for investment.
In furtherance of the same the complainant referred few other
investors for which the accused persons assured the complainant an
additional return.
The alleged Mr. Divesh Rawat as proprietor of DD Enterprises has
entered into written agreements and understanding with some of the
said other referred investments assuring them an assured returns of
3.5% per month. The complainant further alleged that the alleged
persons stopped responding early in December, 2024. In December
2024, after several requests, Mr. Divesh Rawat showed an alleged
portfolio in the name of complainant and represented that the funds
transferred and invested by the complainant have been allocated in
different investments and are shown in the said portfolio. The
complainant further alleged that, he had never signed any document
in favour of Mr. Divesh Rawat or D.D. Enterprises and even after
several requests Mr. Divesh Rawat did not share the details of the
platform used for the said alleged investments or the login
credentials for the same. He further alleged that the said
portfolio/page/electronic document shown by Mr. Divesh Rawat
was a forged, manipulated, fabricated and bogus illustrative
portfolio illegally manufactured to mislead and play fraud.
The complainant further alleged that the alleged persons lastly
paid him an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards assured returns on
investment and then started avoiding communication. On 30th
December, 2024 the accused persons specifically through accused
Mr. Dharmender Singh Rawat approached to complainant for aSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 26 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
meeting. On 31/12/24 the said meeting was conducted and the
alleged Mr. Dharmendra Singh Rawat falsely stated that they do not
have any funds as huge overnight losses have been suffered by
them. But on confrontation the alleged persons did not give any
satisfactory reply and threatened him to implicate in false and
frivolous litigations, complaints etc. The complainant requested to
take legal action on his complaint.
Thereafter, approval to register a case under relevant sections
of law was obtained from senior officers and present case was got
registered. There are several bank accounts involved in the matter.
Investigation is underway. On 06.02.2025 SI Parmod Kumar along
with staff reached the address of the alleged persons, where alleged
Divesh Rawat was not present. Alleged Dharmender Singh Rawat
was found present and a Notice u/s 35(3) of BNSS was served on
him to join the investigation. Thereafter, accused Dharmender
Singh Rawat voluntarily came at Office, NDR Crime Branch and
join the investigation. Thereafter, two notices one for alleged
Dharmender Singh Rawat and second for his son and main accused
of the case Mr. Divesh Rawat were served on him to join
investigation on 07.02.2025.
Thereafter on 07.02.2025 both of the accused came at Office
NDR, Crime Branch and join the investigation. During course of
investigation, the mobile phone of accused Divesh Rawat was
seized. Laptop of alleged Divesh Rawat was also taken into police
possession through seizure memo. Copy of Adhar Card and PAN
card of alleged were obtained to trace connected accounts.
Statements of bank account No. 50200041640864 (in the name of
D.D. Enterprises) was obtained and same is being analysed.
During investigation many other victim/investors are also
come forward and submitting their written complaint alleging same
allegations against both of the alleged persons. Those
victim/investors are namely; 1. Sanghmitra Bhushan, 2. Mrs.
Brijaben Yogesh Bhai Parekh, 3. Manju Paikray & Pranjal Paikray,
4. Tanmay Das, 5. Atul Tyagi, 6. Abhinav Shukla, 7. Varun
Sharma, 8. Vridhi Jain, 9. Preeti Jain, 10. Rahul Makin, 11. Pankaj
Tyagi, 12. Madhuri Jagdish Dubey, 13. Piyush Raghuvanshi. All of
them are on the way to give their written statement. Many bank
accounts of accused and complainant are involved into investmentSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 27 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
and their thorough analyses is required to ascertain money trail.
Investigation is in it’s initial stage. Point wise reply of the prayer
made by the accused Dharmender Singh Rawat:
a) Ld. Court may monitor the present case if deems it fit for
monitoring, at this stage of investigation.
b) The undersigned has no objection if the accused is
permitted to be accompanied by a lawyer of his · choice from a
distance. However, the lawyer joins the investigation with
accused, may mat hamper into the investigation.
c) Ld. Court may pass any directions as per law at this point
if deem fit for videography during interrogation.
d) The copy of FIR can be given to the accused as -per
prescribed law when he demand for it.
e) There is no CCTV camera installed at Office, NDR, Crime
Branch, RK Puram, New Delhi.
It is pertinent to mention here that accused Divesh Rawat in counter
blast of the present case has also filed a complaint against the
present complainant Mr. Sharat Bhattatiripad and one of his
associated and victim in the present case Mr. Pankaj Tyagi @
Panky with Police Station Connaught Place and a Case FIR No.
40/2025 dated 05.03.2025 u/s 120/127/135/351(3)/3(5) BNS PS
Connaught Place has been registered.”
(emphasis supplied)
c. It is also the case of the petitioner that during the subsequent period,
two writ petitions, W.P.(CRL)s Nos. 672/2025 and 778/2025, came to
be filed one seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR and other seeking
transfer of investigation, respectively.
d. On 14.06.2025, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was served on
the petitioner to join the investigation on 15.06.2025 at 11:00 AM at
Crime Branch, NDR, R.K. Puram.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 28 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
e. On 15.06.2025, the petitioner arrived at the said police station at about
11:00 AM and on the same day, he was arrested at 23:44 hours. The
petitioner, in fact, has put on record a photograph evidencing his
presence outside the Officer of Crime Branch, NDR, RK Puram.
f. On 16.06.2025, the petitioner was produced before the learned Duty
JMFC.
g. On 16.06.2025, the Investigating Officer moved the remand application
before the said Court, which is reproduced as under: –
“Most respectfully, it is submitted that on 16.01.2025 a complaint of Sh.
Sharat Bhattatiripad R/O 18, Link Road, Grqund Floor Rear, Jangpura
Extension, Jangpura, New Delhi was received at Crime Branch, NDR vide
Dy. No. 01/C dated 16.01.2025. In his complaint the complainant alleged
that one Mr. Divesh Rawat by way of criminal conspiracy, making of false
documents forgery, forged documents or electronic record · and using it as
genuine etc. lured and induced him to invest his hard earned money and
savings and took 1,24,63,699/- INR from complainant and his family
members.
The alleged accused allured the complainant, his wife Mrs. Sonal Kalra and
aunt of his wife namely Ms. Usha Wadhwa and several other investors to
invest their money into the venture of accused Divesh Rawat. Time to time
the accused used to induce the complainant to bring more investors to invest
further money in this venture and promised further profits.
The alleged Mr. Divesh Rawat as sole proprietor of DD Enterprises
has entered into written agreements and understanding with some of the
investors and assured profit approx. 3-4% per month on their invested
amount. The accused has sent video of a portfolio in November 2024,
showing total corpus Rs. 11,85,99,125/- only to induce · more investors
during interrogation the accused has revealed that at that time he was not in
possession of such huge funds.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 29 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
Thereafter, approval to register a case under relevant sections of law
was obtained from senior officers and present case got registered. There are
several bank accounts involved in the matter. During course of investigation
account statement of alleged accused and the investors were obtained. Apart
from the complainants 13 victims has come forward who have filed their
written complaints, in which 5 have written agreement with the accused. The
said agreements were sent on whatsapp by accused to the victims/investors.
Apart from these 13 complaint 6 other investors have also sent mail to the
undersigned and they are on way to file their complaints. During course ·of
investigation the complainant has provided whatsapp chats records with the
accused person. In those whatsapp chats the accused is inducing the
complainant to bring more investors. Upon investigation the official address
of the alleged firm DD Enterprises was not verified. DD Enterprises is never
registered with concerned registrar office. During course of investigation it
was learnt that the property no. 7 C & D, Block A-2B, Ekta Apartment,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was registered on the name of accused and his
sister Monica Rawat. They bought the said property in July, 2024.
Thereafter, the present case registered in January 2025 and the accused has
sold his property to one Satyender Singh Chauhan and his family shifted to
other address on rent without informing the investigating officer. The
accused has also changed his permanent mobile number. Several bank
accounts and demat accounts were found in the name of accused Divesh
Rawat. In these account there is very minimal amount after registration of the
present case. It seems that he has diverted the funds in some other account.
Many other accounts are found in the name of accused person.
On 15.06.2025 accused has joined the investigation on compliance of notice
u/s 35(3) BNSS. During course of interrogation he was deviating the facts
and not cooperating into the investigation. Therefore, he was arrested in the
present case as his custodial interrogation is required to unearth the whole
conspiracy. His five days police custody remand is required on the following
grounds:
1. To establish money trails of all the investors.
2. To confront the accused person with the complainant and investors.
3. To verify any moveable or immovable property registered on the name of
accused persons.
4. To recover original agreements with the investors.
5. To ascertain the transactions of the demat account shown in alleged video
sent by the accused to Mr. Pankaj Tyagi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 30 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
6. To ascertain the total amount of fraud committed by accused.
7. To ascertain the total money invested by all the victims.
8. To verify the transactions. made by the accused using the proceeds of
crime.
9. To ascertain the other co-accused involved with accused Divesh Rawat in
current case.
Therefore; it is requested to grant five days police custody remand of
accused on above mentioned points.”
h. After hearing the parties, the learned Duty JMFC passed the following
order on 16.06.2025 remanding the petitioner to 2 days of police
custody. The said order reads as under: –
“FIR No. 29/25
U/s 318(4)/316(2)/61(2)BNS
PS Crime Branch
State Vs. Divesh Rawat & Ors.
16.06.2025
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
IO/SI Pramod Kumar in person.
Accused produced after fresh arrest.
Sh. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Ms. Rupali Patil, Mr.
Shantanu, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Id. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Chirag Madan, Mukul Sharma & Ms. Anushka
Thakur, Ld. counsels for accused.
1. Fresh MLC perused. No injury is found on the person of the
accused. Same is confirmed by the accused. Grounds of arrest of accused
appears to be justified.
2. IO has moved an application for grant of police custody of 05
days of the accused persons. IO submits that there is allegations of
cheating of total amount of Rs. 14 Crores approximately involving multi
investors. Further he submits that in the instant FIR there is an allegation
of Rs. 1,24,66,699/- against the accused. IO submits that the PC of the
accused is required mainly on the following grounds:
• To establish money trails of all the investors.
• To confront the accused person with the complainant & investors.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 31 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
• To verify any movable or immovable poprerty registered on the name
of accused persons.
• To recover original agreements with the investors.
• To verify the transactions made by the accused using the proceeds of
crime.
• To ascertain the other co-accused involved with accused Divesh
Rawat in current case.
3. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused submits that the arrest of
the accused is illegal as he has been produced beyond 24 hours. Further
he submits that no CCTV Camera is installed at Crime Branch NDR
Sector 8 R.K.Puram. Ld. counsel for the accused furhter submits that he
has already cooperated with the investigating authorities and joined the
investigation several times. Further he submits that the entire case is
based upon documentary evidence and hence, no PC remand is required.
4. Arguments heard at length. I have carfefully perused the
record of the present case i.e. the arrest memo, the documents
pertaining to grounds of arrest, reasons of arrest and the other
annexed documents.
5. Keeping in view the grounds put forth seeking PC and the fact
that the police interrogation is an integral part of the police investigation
and present accused is prima facie involved in a serious offence, PC
remand of accused is warranted. In view of the same, application of IO is
allowed and he is granted 02 days Police Custody of the accused Divesh
Rawat.
6. Accused persons be got medically examined as per guidelines of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India during police custody. Dasti copy of
order be given to IO as prayed for.
7. Accused persons be produced before the concerned court / Duty
MM on 18.06.2025.
Copy of this order be given dasti.”
(emphasis supplied)
i. On completion of two days’ police custody remand, the petitioner was
again produced before learned JMFC on 18.06.2025 and an application
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 32 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
seeking further remand of the petitioner for 5 days was moved by the
Investigating Officer; and vide order dated 18.06.2025, further two
days’ police remand was granted.
j. Subsequently, after completion of 2 days PC remand, the petitioner was
again produced before the learned JMFC on 20.06.2025 and an
application seeking further 5 days police remand was further preferred,
however, the same was declined and the petitioner was sent to the
judicial custody.
21. This Court would deal with the contentions raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner chronologically. The first contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner is with respect to delay in his production before the learned JMFC
after arrest beyond 24 hours. The additional affidavit dated 07.07.2025 filed
Pramod Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, shows that the
petitioner was in constant touch with his father who was with him at the
police station. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent/State
that the petitioner had gone out with his father for lunch and had come back to
Office of Crime Branch at 02:30 PM. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that the mobile phone which was being used by the latter was not
seized during his arrest. It is pertinent to note that the mobile phone of the
petitioner had already been seized by the Investigating Officer prior to his
joining investigation on 15.06.2025. The phone which the petitioner was
using apparently belonged to his mother, and therefore, the Investigating
Officer would not have seized it. It is also pertinent to note that the
petitioner’s father was outside the police station, all the while he was being
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 33 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
interrogated. As already pointed out hereinbefore, the petitioner and his father
had been actually availing their legal remedies with respect to the
investigation in the present FIR. There is no averment in the petition that the
petitioner was taken anywhere from Police Station to any other place
accompanied by the Investigating Officer. Simple denial that the additional
affidavit filed by the respondent/State is incorrect will not be sufficient to
doubt the correctness of the same. The timeline of the calls between the
petitioner and his father showing that they were in contact with each other on
15.06.2025 in the affidavit is from 11:25:31 hours on 15.06.2025 to 22:37:51
hours on 15.06.2025. Petitioner was arrested at 23:44 hours on 15.06.2025. If
the petitioner’s movement had been restrained any time before that, he could
have informed his father via phone which the petitioner was using to be in
touch with him. The frequency of calls will also suggest that both the
petitioner and his father were in constant touch with each other continuously.
22. In Subhash Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing
with a case of an accused/appellant who was apprehended at the airport on the
basis of a lookout circular issued by ED and therefore it was held that the
period of detention of the appellant therein from the moment he was detained
would be counted for calculating 24 hours for the purposes of his production
before Magistrate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 34 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
23. In Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar (supra), learned Division Bench of
Hon’ble Bombay High Court while holding the detention of the petitioner
therein as illegal had observed as under: –
“31. In our view, there can be no doubt that the Petitioner’s free
movement and liberty were restrained on 25 October 2024 at 1:00 p.m.
when he was taken into custody at Shivajinagar Metro Station, Pune and
produced before the Shivajinagar Police Station. Even otherwise, the
police authorities took the Petitioner from Pune to Baramati and reached
Baramati on 25 October 2024 at 5:07 p.m. At least from 5:07 p.m. on 25
October 2024, the Petitioner can be said to have been arrested.
32. The general diary detail annexed at page 83 of the present Writ
Petition records that on 25 October 2024, at Shivajinagar Police Station
at 13:11 hours, the Petitioner was taken into custody. The phrase used in
the general diary details of Shivajinagar Police Station is “ताब्यात” which
would mean custody or control of the Petitioner. Similarly, on reaching
Baramati on 25 October 2024 at 17:07 hours, Baramati Police Station in
their general diary details recorded that the Petitioner was taken into
custody or control since the phrase “ताब्यात” is mentioned even in the
general diary details at Baramati. Therefore, the time of arrest would
begin from 25 October 2024 at 1:00 p.m. or at least from 5:07 p.m. on 25
October 2024. The phrase “ताब्यात” in English would mean “custody” has
been resolved by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Hemang Jadhavji Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.6.”
In the present case, the petitioner had arrived at Office of Crime
Branch, NDR, RK Puram at 11:00 AM on 15.06.2025 and after his arrest on
15.06.2025 at 23:44 hours he was produced before learned Duty JMFC on
16.06.2025 at 02:30 PM. Thus, as per the petitioner, he was detained by the
Investigating Officer at 11:00 AM on 15.06.2025 and was produced on
16.06.2025 at 02:30 PM which is three hours more than stipulated period of
24 hours. As per the additional affidavit dated 07.07.2025 filed by Sub-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 35 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
Inspector Pramod Kumar, Crime Branch, the petitioner had gone out for lunch
with his father at 01:30 PM and came back at around 02:30 PM on
15.06.2025. Apart from a general denial during the course of arguments, the
petitioner and his father have not refuted the said contention on affidavit or
otherwise.
24. As already noted hereinbefore, the petitioner before his arrest at 23:44
hours on 15.06.2025 was not under any physical constraint and was, in fact, in
possession of his mobile phone. The Investigating Officer in the present case
was aware about the Court monitored investigation. In view of the above facts
and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there has been
no delay in producing the petitioner before learned Duty JMFC.
25. Secondly, it is the case of the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were
provided to the latter in the Court along with the remand application dated
16.06.2025 and not at the time when he was arrested, i.e., 15.06.2025 at 23:44
hours or around the said time. It is also the case of the petitioner that the arrest
memo was provided on 18.06.2025 to the learned counsel of the petitioner
(grounds q and r of the petition). Similarly, the grounds of arrest were not
supplied to the family members of the petitioner.
26. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent/State
that the grounds of arrest were provided to the petitioner simultaneously, and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 36 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
the same were duly acknowledged by him and has placed on record a signed
copy of the same along with the status report dated 29.06.2025. It is also the
case of the respondent that the arrest memo also records that the grounds of
arrest were also separately given and the said memo has been duly signed by
the father of the petitioner, who was, admittedly, present with him at the said
time in the police station. A perusal of the remand order dated 16.06.2025, as
reproduced hereinbefore, records that the only objection taken by learned
counsel for the petitioner, at that time, was that he was being produced after
24 hours. It is stated in the present petition that the grounds of arrest and
reasons of arrest along with the remand application were handed over to the
petitioner at the time of the Court hearing on remand application; however, no
such objection or contention was raised before the learned JMFC on the said
day. Neither it was urged that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the
father of the petitioner, who was present at the time of his arrest. Perusal of
the record, as noted hereinbefore, shows that the petitioner himself had moved
an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction for Court monitored
investigation and in response to the said application, the Investigating Officer
had filed a reply informing the material unearthed during investigation qua
the present petitioner. The reply also states that the petitioner can be
accompanied by any lawyer at the time when he comes for interrogation.
Thus, as can be seen from the above, the petitioner was fully conscious of his
rights and the fact that this objection of not providing of grounds of arrest and
reasons of arrest at the time of his arrest was not taken when the remand
orders dated 16.06.2025 and 18.06.2025 were passed by learned JMFC cannot
be overlooked. The arrest memo dated 15.06.2025 records that the grounds of
arrest have been given separately to the petitioner. The arrest memo also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 37 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
records that the father of the petitioner was informed, who was present at the
time of the arrest of the petitioner. The grounds of arrest as annexed with the
status report dated 29.06.2025 filed in the present petition bears the signatures
of the petitioner with date, i.e., 16.06.2025.
27. It is the case of the petitioner himself that the grounds of arrest and
reasons of arrest were handed over to him at the time of hearing of the remand
application on 16.06.2025. As per the case of the respondent/State, there is a
signed document which has been placed on record which reflect that the
grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner on 16.06.2025 itself. The
same document, however, which is unsigned has been placed on record by the
petitioner, which as per him, was given at the time when the remand
application was heard before the learned Duty JMFC on 16.06.2025. But even
during the hearing of 2nd remand application on 18.06.2025, no objection as to
whether grounds of arrest have been supplied or not were raised before the
concerned Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that in case there is non-
compliance of the mandatory provision and even if no objection is taken, the
same can be raised at a subsequent stage. However, in the facts of the present
case, when the respondent has come to record to show that the grounds of
arrest was provided to the petitioner at the relevant point of time then such
grounds not being raised on 16.06.2025 and 18.06.2025 before learned JMFC
assumes significance.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 38 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
28. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed and held as under: –
“45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the
provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has
laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused
in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land
binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.
46. Now, coming to the aspect as to whether the grounds of arrest were
actually conveyed to the appellant in writing before he was remanded to
the custody of the investigating officer.
47. We have carefully perused the arrest memo (Annexure P-7) and find
that the same nowhere conveys the grounds on which the accused was
being arrested. The arrest memo is simply a pro forma indicating the
formal “reasons” for which the accused was being arrested.
48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition 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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 39 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
49. From the detailed analysis made above, 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 appellant-accused or his counsel
before passing of the order of remand dated 4-10-2023 which vitiates the
arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant.
50. As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from
custody by applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court
in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576].”
In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
that the grounds of arrest which were set out in the remand application was
transmitted to the Advocate of the petitioner therein, after the remand had
been granted by the remand Judge. In the said case, the remand application
that had set out the grounds of arrest was supplied after grant of remand order,
which is not the case in the present factual context.
29. In Vihaan Kumar (supra), there was a complete non-compliance by
the arresting authority in providing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner
therein. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan
Kumar (supra) reads as under: –
“Factual adjudication
27. In Ground A of the writ petition filed before the High Court, a
specific factual contention has been raised to the following effect:
“A. Because the arrest of the petitioner dated 10-6-2024 is patently
illegal inasmuch the petitioner was not provided with the grounds or
reasons of arrest.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 40 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
* * *”
Even the same contention is raised in Ground B very specifically and a
further contention is raised due to non-compliance with the requirement
of informing the appellant of the grounds of arrest, the appellant’s arrest
is rendered illegal. The same is the ground specifically taken in Ground
E also. Thus, the appellant repeatedly pleaded violation of Article 22(1)
by explicitly contending that he was not informed of the grounds of
arrest.
28. A status report/reply was filed by Shri Abhimanyu, Assistant
Commissioner of Police before the High Court in response to the
petition. The grounds taken in the writ petition regarding failure to
communicate the grounds of arrest are not dealt with in the reply at all. It
is merely mentioned that the appellant’s wife was informed about the
arrest. Thus, it is not even pleaded before the High Court that grounds of
arrest were communicated or informed to the appellant.
29. It is pertinent to note the stand Shri Abhimanyu took while filing a
reply to the present special leave petition. He has described in detail how
the appellant was arrested. Most pertinently in Para 11, he stated thus:
“***
The petitioner, thereafter, gave his phone to IO to make call at the
mobile number of his wife. The IO called from the phone of the
petitioner and his wife immediately responded the phone call. Thus,
when informing petitioner’s wife about petitioner’s arrest, the grounds
of arrest were also explained to her in detail as per the provisions of
Section 50-ACrPC. Further, when petitioner’s wife came to meet the
petitioner, she was again explained the grounds of arrest in detail and
shown the relevant documents.
***”
(emphasis supplied)
30. Thus, the stand taken by Shri Abhimanyu is that the grounds of arrest
were explained to the appellant’s wife in detail, and when she again came
to meet the appellant, she was informed and explained the grounds of
arrest. Thus, the stand taken shows that grounds of arrest were not
informed to the appellant but to his wife. The contention that the
appellant’s wife was informed about the grounds of arrest is an
afterthought, as no such contention has been raised in the reply filed
before the High Court. Communication of the grounds of arrest to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 41 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
wife of the arrestee is no compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1).
As the ground of non-compliance with Article 22(1) has been
specifically pleaded in this appeal, this was the second opportunity
available to the first respondent to plead and prove that grounds of arrest
were informed to the appellant. However, it has not been done, and his
contention is that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the
appellant’s wife.
31. A contention has been raised in the written argument that the grounds
of arrest were incorporated in the remand report. This contention has
been raised for the first time in written submissions before this Court.
This is not pleaded in the reply filed before the High Court and this
Court. The police submit a remand report before the learned Magistrate
for seeking remand without serving a copy thereof to the arrestee. The
reason is that the police cannot divulge the details of the investigation to
the accused till the final report is filed. Mentioning the grounds of arrest
in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing
the arrestee of the grounds of arrest.
32. The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant’s wife
was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely
different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different
from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the
arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of
FIR and section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name
of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number
of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. We have
perused the arrest memo in the present case. The same contains only the
information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information
about the arrest is completely different from the information about the
grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to
furnishing grounds of arrest.
33. Reliance was placed in this regard on the case diary entry of 10-6-
2024 at 6.10 p.m., which records that the appellant was arrested after
informing him of the grounds of arrest. This was not pleaded before the
High Court as well as in this Court in the reply of the first respondent.
This is an afterthought. Considering the stand taken in the reply filed
before the High Court and this Court, only on the basis of a vague entry
in the police diary, we cannot accept that compliance with Article 22(1)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 42 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
can be inferred. No contemporaneous documents have been put on
record wherein the grounds of arrest have been noted. Therefore, reliance
placed on the diary entries is completely irrelevant.
34. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding
that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure
to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by
Article 22(1) of the Constitution.”
30. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
who had already filed an application seeking Court monitored investigation
had come to the Office of Crime Branch, NDR, RK Puram, on 15.06.2025 in
pursuance of the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. It is also not
in dispute that the petitioner was accompanied by his father at that time and
his father was with him till his arrest on the said date, i.e., 15.06.2025 at 23:44
hours. It is also not in dispute that the copy of the remand application along
with grounds of arrest and reasons of arrest were supplied duly to the learned
counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the remand application on
16.06.2025. Learned JMFC while passing the first remand order dated
16.06.2025 had observed as under: –
“4. Arguments heard at length. I have carfefully perused the record of the
present case i.e. the arrest memo, the documents pertaining to grounds of
arrest, reasons of arrest and the other annexed documents.”
31. The issue is that whether the grounds of arrest were supplied to the
petitioner and his family member at the time of his arrest. The case of the
respondent is that the same were supplied immediately after the arrest and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 43 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
same were duly acknowledged by the petitioner by putting his signatures
thereon which has now been placed on record along with the status report
filed in the present petition. It is also matter of record that the aforesaid
observation by the learned JMFC also shows that the arrest memo, the
documents pertaining to grounds of arrest, reasons of arrest and the other
documents were also annexed with the remand paper. Thus, the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the arrest memo was supplied on
18.06.2025 is also not tenable. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the
observation made by the learned JMFC on 16.06.2025 wherein, it is records
that the arrest memo, reasons of arrest and documents were annexed with the
remand application. As already noted hereinbefore, it is not the case of the
petitioner that he had no legal assistance. The facts as narrated by the
petitioner himself shows that throughout the investigation of the present FIR,
the petitioner was availing of his legal remedies as and when he deemed it
appropriate. Thus, not raising the plea of non-supply of grounds of arrest at
the time of remand proceeding on 16.06.2025 and 18.06.2025 assumes
significance and cannot be ignored to conclude that there was non-compliance
of the same.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments with respect
to the grounds of arrest must be supplied to the family, friends, or person
nominated by the person arrested. In Sujata (supra), the issue raised was in
respect of the timing of arrest in terms of Section 46(4) of the CrPC and
whether it was made before or after sunset as the accused/applicant therein
was a female. There were various documents, i.e., arrest memo, pre-arrest
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 44 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
medical report and requisition issued to the Medical Officer, contrary to each
other on record showing different timings of arrest. Another ground taken
therein was that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relatives
of the applicant therein. It was in these circumstances, the arrest in Sujata
(supra) was declared illegal. However, in the present case, the timing of the
arrest has been shown to be at 23:44 hours on 15.06.2025 and also that the
grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the present petitioner when his
father was present at Police Station at the time of his arrest.
33. In Lalit Phukon (supra), the grounds of arrest were not communicated
to the friends, relatives, or family members of the accused/petitioner therein.
However, in the present case, they were duly communicated to the petitioner
who was accompanied by his father and was present at the police station
while the petitioner was being interrogated and subsequently arrested.
34. In Gagan (supra), the arrest memo therein did not have column for
‘grounds of arrest’ and it was not the case of prosecution therein that ‘grounds
of arrest’ were separately served to the applicant therein at the time of his
arrest. However, in the present case, in the arrest memo, it has been
mentioned that the present petitioner was served separately with the grounds
of arrest. Likewise, the other cases relied on by learned counsel for the
petitioner in this regard are distinguishable on facts.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 45 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
35. Thus, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
there has been no violation of the principle laid down in Vihaan Kumar
(supra) by the respondent/State insofar as the supply of grounds of arrest to
the petitioner and his family member is concerned.
36. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the grounds of
arrest in remand application are different from the ones provided at the time
of arrest. In this context, it will be relevant to examine the observations of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) which reads
thus: –
“27. The object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest
should be communicated to the person arrested has been very succinctly
explained in Vihaan Kumar (supra). On learning about the grounds for
arrest, the person concerned will be in a position to make an application
before the appropriate Court for bail, or move the High Court for a writ
of habeas corpus. Further, the information will enable the arrested person
to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of his trial. For these
reasons, it has been 30 provided by the Constitution that, the ground for
the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon as
possible.
28. For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for
the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the
information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to
understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated
to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed
by the Court for the trial of a case.
**** **** ****
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 46 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the
arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is
sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of
the grounds for his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be
told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an
offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for
which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has
committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him
which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts
done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the
law applicable to such acts would not be enough. (See: Vimal Kishore
Mehrotra (supra))”
Perusal of the application seeking remand and grounds of arrest shows
that apart from the grounds of arrest, the said application further specifies the
reasons for seeking police remand of the petitioner. In the grounds of arrest as
well as the remand application, the petitioner has been informed of the act
alleged qua him for the commission of offences for which he was being
arrested.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in facts and circumstances of
the present case, the present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
38. Needless to state that, nothing mentioned hereinabove, is an opinion on
the merits of the case or on the pending trial against the present Petitioner and
any observations made herein are only for the purpose of the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 47 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11
39. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
40. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
necessary information and compliance.
41. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J.
AUGUST 12, 2025/bsr/ns
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT W.P.(CRL) 1921/2025 Page 48 of 48
Signing Date:12.08.2025
19:23:11