Jharkhand High Court
Vinay Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through … on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
Vinay Kumar Choubey, aged about 50 years, son of Devendra Choubey,
resident of 4-Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S. Gonda, Ranchi, Jharkhand
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
—–
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate (Through VC)
Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Rishi Bharti, A.C. to A.A.G.-III
For the Vigilance (ACB) : Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate
—–
07/14.08.2025 This matter was taken up yesterday. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner had concluded his arguments and, thereafter,
Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the ACB had
started his arguments, however, the same was not over and, therefore, the
matter has been posted for today and Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta has
concluded his arguments today and, thereafter, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has
replied to the argument of the learned counsel for the ACB.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the remand order dated
20.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Ranchi in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.09/2025. The further
prayer is made for quashing and setting-aside the arrest of the petitioner,
whereby, the learned Special Judge remanded the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of
the Indian Penal Code (corresponding Section of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023; Section 61(2) read with 318/336/340/316/45 and 49) and Section
7(c)/12/13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prayer is also made to release the petitioner forthwith from the custody.
-1- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has investigated the matter and the
officials of the Excise and Prohibition Department and Jharkhand State
Beverages Corporation Limited and two private placement agencies, primarily
selected by the Excise and Prohibition Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi,
namely, (1) M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Private Limited
and (2) M/s Marshan Innovative Security Services Private Limited, in collusion,
have allegedly engaged in forgery, used fake bank guarantees to tarnish the
reputation of the concerned bank, committed fraud, cheated the Government,
manipulated documents, and caused financial loss to the State exchequer to
the tune of approximately Rs.38 Crores while securing illegal benefits through
collective criminal conduct, in violation of prescribed tender and audit
regulations.
4. It was further alleged that due to the deliberate omission and inaction
of concerned officials, private placement agencies submitted fraudulent bank
guarantees to secure contracts for providing manpower to retail excise shops,
resulting in a substantial loss to Government revenue, estimated to the tune
of approximately Rs.38 Crores.
5. It was also alleged that the officials were knowing the fraudulent
nature of these guarantees and intentionally refrained from enforcing them,
thereby protecting private parties at the cost of over Rs.200 Crore in public
funds. Even after issuing demand notices, the Department avoided recovery
efforts, suggesting collusion and institutional corruption.
6. It was further alleged that the agencies have failed to deposit the full
amount of liquor sales revenue into the Government treasury. It was alleged
-2- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )that no action was taken by the officials to recover mounting deficits in spite
of retail policy mandating monthly assessments and invocation of bank
guarantees in case of Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR) and shortfalls.
7. It was also alleged that the petitioner is senior I.A.S. officer posted in
the State of Jharkhand; served as the Excise Secretary and concurrently held
the position of Managing Director of Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation
Limited (JSBCL) and he was having control over policy making, departmental
administration and operational execution which granted him authority over
the selection, supervision and financial regulation of placement agencies. In
the aforesaid backgrounds, the ACB has registered the FIR dated 20.05.2025
against the petitioner and Shri Gajendra Singh, Joint Commissioner, Excise
and Prohibition Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi along with other related
officers/employees in connection with allegations of irregularities in the
selection of agencies and alleged revenue loss during the implementation and
enforcement of the Jharkhand Excise Policy, 2022.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
8. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that as per the police case, the FIR was lodged on 20.05.2025 at
07:30 A.M. and immediately thereafter within two hours, the opposite party
agency arrived at the petitioner’s residence at around 09:30 A.M. and picked
him up in the name of investigation and the petitioner was thereafter formally
arrested at 03:15 P.M. on the same day, i.e., 20.05.2025. In this background,
on much emphasis he argued that this was done without providing the
petitioner or his family/friends/lawyer with the grounds of arrest. He
submitted that the arrest memo is contained in Annexure-2 in which the
-3- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )ground of arrest in not mentioned. On this ground, he submitted that once
the ground of arrest is not provided at the time of arrest and the petitioner
was remanded to judicial custody by the order of the learned Court, there is
clear violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights provided under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as mandatory requirements
prescribed under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/
Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He further
elaborated his arguments by way of submitting that it is no longer res integra
that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrested
individual forthwith. He submitted that the ground of arrest was not provided
to the petitioner. He further submitted that it was objected by the petitioner
by way of filing an objection application before the learned Special Judge,
thereafter, the opposite party agency prepared and supplied the alleged
grounds of arrest and this was done more than 24 hours after the petitioner’s
arrest and also after the impugned order has been passed and he was
remanded to judicial custody. He also submitted that the learned Special
Judge has not adhered the mandatory provision provided under Section 50
of the Cr.P.C./Section 47 of BNSS as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India. According to him, there is serious procedural lapse and in view of
that, the petitioner’s liberty has been snatched and, therefore, he is entitled
to be released forthwith from the custody. All these arguments, he has placed
by way of inviting attention of the Court to the FIR, the refusal made by the
petitioner on the arrest memo as well as the remand order dated 20.05.2025.
He has also placed Section 50 of the Cr.P.C./Section 47 of BNSS and objection
application filed by the petitioner, contained at page 148 of the petition. By
-4- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
way of placing the impugned order, he submitted that there is no whisper of
the grounds of not supplying in written form. He relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State
of Haryana and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. He
referred paragraphs 14, 16 and 21 of the said judgment, which read as under:
“14. 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 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 cannot remain in
custody even for a second.
16. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the first respondent to argue that after his
arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody,
and now a charge-sheet has been filed. His submission is that
now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order
taking cognizance passed on the charge-sheet. Accepting
such arguments, with great respect to the learned Senior
Counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and
22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is
unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest
itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a
person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a
charge-sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an
arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of
Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot
tinker with the most important safeguards provided under-5- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
CONCLUSIONS
21. Therefore, we conclude:
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 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 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.”
Relying on the above judgment particularly the conclusion made in
paragraph 21(b) and (c), much emphasis has been made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. By way of placing these paragraphs, he submitted
that it was the onus on the investigating agency to prove the compliance and
facts as was presented in the present case, which has not been proved and
in view of that, the arrest is in violation of the judgment passed in Vihaan
-6- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
Kumar (supra).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v.
State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. He referred
paragraph 19 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
“19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court
that any person arrested for allegation of commission of
offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any
other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to
be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy
of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the
arrested person as a matter of course and without exception
at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested
person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct
inasmuch as this information would be the only effective
means for the arrested person to consult his advocate;
oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other
interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of
the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.”
By way of placing the above judgment, he submitted that the supply
of ground is a must, as has been held in the above judgment.
10. By way of placing reliance at page 150 of the petition, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the grounds are even served after 24 hours
and the petitioner has received and signed the same. The time has also been
disclosed at 04:15 P.M. In this background, he submitted that Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India has been violated and right of the petitioner has
been curtailed and in view of that, the remand may kindly be set-aside and
the petitioner may kindly be directed to be released forthwith from the
custody.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union
-7- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
of India, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 and submits that no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed,
as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced compilation of the
judgments and drawn attention of the Court to page 112 of the said
compilation and submitted that the provision of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India have been further reiterated by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Marfing Tamang v. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 548. He also relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pranav
Kuckreja v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del
9549.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn attention of the Court to
the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the ACB and submitted that
station diary has been brought on record at page 31 thereof, wherein, it has
been disclosed that the grounds have been communicated to the petitioner.
According to him, this was after thought by the ACB and this was not done
as per his knowledge.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that remand by
the learned Magistrate was further emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) at paragraph 20 and if non-
compliance is there of supplying the ground, the arrest is required to be
declared as illegal. On these grounds, he submitted that the remand order
may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner may kindly be directed to be
released forthwith from the custody.
-8- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACB:
15. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party-ACB opposed the prayer and submitted that so far as ACB
is concerned, the procedure of arrest and remand has been fully followed. He
placed Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India along with Section 47 of BNSS
and submitted that there is no requirement of providing the ground in writing.
He submitted that even the word ‘writing’ is not disclosed in Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS says that it shall be
forthwith. He also submitted that in light of Section 35 of BNSS, the ACB has
followed the statutory provision, as the punishment alleged against the
petitioner is on the basis of credible information and it extends to more than
7 years. According to him, in light of these, the ACB has acted and there is
no illegality in the entire procedure of arrest of the petitioner.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that so far
as Pankaj Bansal case (supra) is concerned, much reliance has been
placed by the petitioner, however, that case was arising out of a case under
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein there is express provision of
providing the reason to believe in writing in light of Section 19 of the said
Act. He further submitted that so far as Vihaan Kumar (supra) case is
concerned, in that judgment the cases of Pankaj Bansal (supra) and
Prabir Purkayastha (supra) have been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. He submitted that so far as the case of Prabir Purkayastha
(supra) is concerned, that case was filed under Section 43-B(1) of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘UAPA’).
17. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that the
-9- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
arrest was made on 20.05.2025 and within half an hour, the petitioner was
produced before the learned Court, whereby, he has been remanded to
judicial custody. He drawn attention of the Court to Annexure-3 Series of the
petition and submitted that the grounds of arrest have been provided to the
petitioner. At that stage, he submitted that the petitioner is also an accused
in FIR No.26/2024 registered by the State Economic Offence, ACB, Raipur in
the State of Chhattisgarh. He submitted that initially preliminary enquiry
being P.E. No.03/2024, dated 27.09.2024 was instituted against the petitioner
and in the said preliminary enquiry, entire material has come and the
petitioner was noticed and in spite of that, he has not appeared meaning
thereby the petitioner was knowing the grounds why the FIR has been
registered and intentionally, he has not cooperated in the preliminary enquiry.
He submitted that the petitioner is a senior IAS officer and he knew the
grounds of arrest and intentionally he has refused to sign the arrest memo
and in view of that, the arrest memo was served upon the bodyguard of the
petitioner on the same day. He also submitted that the petitioner’s Advocate
was heard at the time of remand and by way of placing the said order, he
submitted that only ground was argued before the learned Magistrate that
the petitioner is having some ailment and in view of that, the learned Court
after remand has directed to take care of the petitioner in light of the ailment.
He submitted that the said remand order was later signed by the petitioner
and he has not protested in signing the remand memo, which further
suggests that remand ground has been provided to the petitioner. He drawn
attention of the Court to the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi and submitted that in the said order, the learned
-10- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
Court has recorded in clear terms that the I.O. has submitted micro SD card
marked as “A” in sealed envelope related to the video of explanation of
ground of arrest to the petitioner and Gajendra Singh and that has been
ordered to keep in a safe custody in ACB Malkhana by the I.O. and produce
the same before the Court as and when required.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB again drawn attention of the
Court to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS
and submitted that so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, all
procedures have been followed and the petitioner was also informed orally
as well as by the video recording and, as such, there is full compliance of
Article 22(1) of Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS.
19. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB also submitted that in the
supplementary counter affidavit, station diary has been brought on record at
page 31, wherein, it has stated in clear terms that the petitioner was
informed about the arrest ground and it was also recorded in the form of
video and that has been kept in SD memory card.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that so far
as arrest is concerned, that was subject-matter before the 3 Judges Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of Madhu Limaye and
others, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 292. He referred paragraph 10 of the
said judgment, which reads as under:
“10. Article 22(1) embodies a rule which has always been
regarded as vital and fundamental for safeguarding personal
liberty in all legal systems where the rule of law prevails. For
example, the 6th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America contains similar provisions and so does
article 34 of the Japanese Constitution of 1946. In England
whenever an arrest is made without a warrant, the arrested
person has a right to be informed not only that he is being-11- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )arrested but also of the reasons or grounds for the arrest. The
House of Lords in Christie v. Leachinsky [[1947] A.C. 573 :
(1947) 1 All ELR 567] went into the origin and development
of this rule. In the words of Viscount Simon if a policeman who
entertained a reasonable suspicion that X had committed a
felony were at liberty to arrest him and march him off to a
police station without giving any explanation of why he was
doing this, the prima facie right of personal liberty would be
gravely infringed. Viscount Simon laid down several
propositions which were not meant to be exhaustive. For our
purposes we may refer to the first and the third:
“1. If a policeman arrests without warrant upon
reasonable suspicion of felony, or of other crime of a
sort which does not require a warrant, he must in
ordinary circumstances inform the person arrested of
the true ground of arrest. He is not entitled to keep the
reason to himself or to give a reason which is not the
true reason. In other words, a citizen is entitled to know
on what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is
seized.
2. * * *
3. The requirement that the person arrested should be
informed of the reason why he is seized naturally does
not exist if the circumstances are such that he must
know the general nature of the alleged offence for
which he is detained.” ………..”
By way of placing the above judgment, he submitted that there has
been explanation in what circumstances the grounds are required to be
provided and in light of that also, the ACB has followed the procedure and
there is no illegality.
21. According to him, criminal antecedent has been suppressed by the
petitioner and he has not disclosed that fact that he is also an accused in a
case registered by the ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
22. By way of referring commentary on the Constitution of India by
Mr. D.D. Basu, he submitted that there are several instances provided therein
in what circumstances how investigating agency can act. He submitted that
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ACB has also followed
the same and in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
-12- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
23. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that in the
case of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2012 SC 3565 at paragraph 484,
Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India have been further
considered. He referred paragraph 484 of the said judgment, which reads as
under:
“484. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the
right to access to legal aid, to consult and to be defended by
a legal practitioner, arises when a person arrested in
connection with a cognizable offence is first produced before
a magistrate. We, accordingly, hold that it is the duty and
obligation of the magistrate before whom a person accused of
committing a cognizable offence is first produced to make him
fully aware that it is his right to consult and be defended by a
legal practitioner and, in case he has no means to engage a
lawyer of his choice, that one would be provided to him from
legal aid at the expense of the State. The right flows
from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and needs to be
strictly enforced. We, accordingly, direct all the magistrates in
the country to faithfully discharge the aforesaid duty and
obligation and further make it clear that any failure to fully
discharge the duty would amount to dereliction in duty and
would make the concerned magistrate liable to departmental
proceedings.”
Relying on the above judgment, he submitted that there is no doubt if
the procedure is not followed, the Court is competent to say that it is not in
accordance with law, however, the right is given to a person, who is not
having a lawyer and no capacity to engage anybody, now the Courts are
taking care of it and this aspect of the matter has been considered in the said
case. He submitted that so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, his
lawyer was present and he has fully defended the case of the petitioner at
the time of remand and, thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
24. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB has also distinguished the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the case of
-13- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
Vihaan Kumar (supra) and drawn attention of the Court to paragraphs 13
and 15 of the said judgment and submitted that the facts and circumstances
of each case is to be understood separately. He submitted that in paragraph
13, it has been said that the communication should be meaningful and in
paragraph 15, it is suggestive in nature.
25. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB also submitted that so far as
judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of
Marphing Tamang (supra) is concerned, in the said case the FIR was
registered on 17.05.2024 and the accused was remanded on 18.05.2024 and
in that background, the said order has been passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court.
26. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner
in the case of Pranav Kuckreja (supra) is concerned, in that case the
petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2023 and remanded on the next day i.e.,
13.01.2023 and in the arrest memo, no ground of arrest was provided and
even in remand application, no ground was provided and, in that background,
that order has been passed. So far as the petitioner’s case is concerned, that
is distinguishable. On these grounds, he submitted that there is no illegality
in the impugned order and in view of that, this case is fit to be rejected.
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITONER:
27. In reply, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner through Video Conferencing submitted that Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India was considered at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in two of the judgments i.e. Vihaan Kumar and Prabir Purkayastha
(supra) and in clear terms, it has been stated that the ground of arrest must
-14- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )be in writing. He submitted that even the Vihaan Kumar’s (supra) case is
not against Madhu Limaye’s (supra) case. He drawn attention of the Court
to paragraph 25 of Vihaan Kumar’s case and further paragraph 48 of the
Prabir Purkayastha‘s case as well as two judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court. He further drawn attention of the Court to paragraph 21 of the
Vihaan Kumar’s case and further made emphasis on directions issued in
paragraphs (b) and (c) thereof and submitted that written ground is necessary.
On these grounds, he submitted that entire process of arrest of the petitioner
is not in accordance with law and, as such, the impugned order may kindly
be set-aside and the petitioner may be directed to be released forthwith from
the custody.
ANALYSIS:
28. This Court is conscious of the fact that this Court is examining liberty
of the person, who has been arrested by the ACB, Ranchi. This Court is not
having any iota of doubt in the mind that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS/Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. has to be
followed mandatorily. The only question remains to be decided in the present
case as to whether the procedure has been followed or not in the remand.
29. Admittedly, the FIR was registered on 20.05.2025 at 07:30 A.M. and
the ACB visited the residence of the petitioner at 09:30 A.M. and he was taken
for investigation and, thereafter, the petitioner was formally arrested at 03:15
P.M. on the same day, i.e., 20.05.2025. The petitioner has refused to sign the
arrest memo, contained in Annexure-2. Annexure-3 Series are the certified
copy of remand application by the ACB, dated 20.05.2025, which is contained
in the memo of arrest, the medical examination of the petitioner as well as
-15- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )Aadhar Card of the petitioner. The objection application is contained at page
148 and Annexure-4 is the ground of arrest received by the petitioner on
21.05.2025. The impugned order is dated 20.05.2025.
30. For ready reference, Article 22(1) of Constitution of India is quoted
herein below:
“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 he be denied the right to
consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his
choice.”
In light of the said provision made under the Constitution of India, the
requirement is there to inform the grounds for such arrest as soon as possible.
31. Section 47 of the BNSS speaks as under:
“47. 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 his behalf.”
In light of the above, ground is required to be provided forthwith.
32. In both the provisions, the word “writing” is missing, however, Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India has been interpreted several times by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and in two of the judgments recently on which heavy
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases
of Vihaan Kumar and Prabir Purkayastha (supra).
33. In the case of Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
-16- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), wherein, at paragraphs 21 to 23, it has
been held as under:
“21. In view of the above, the expression ―as soon as may
be‖ contained in Section 19 PMLA is required to be construed
as — as early as possible without avoidable delay‖ or ―within
reasonably convenient‖ or ―reasonably requisite‖ period of
time. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the officer
concerned to forward a copy of the order along with the
material in his possession to the adjudicating authority
immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the
person arrested to the court concerned within 24 hours of the
arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably
requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his
arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest.
22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] ,
it has been categorically held that so long as the person has
been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is
sufficient compliance with 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 arrested, 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 PMLA but also of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India.
23. As discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal case
[Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] also
noticing the inconsistent practice being followed by the
officers arresting the persons under Section 19 PMLA, directed
to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of
course, ―henceforth‖, meaning thereby from the date of the
pronouncement of the judgment. The very use of the
word ―henceforth‖ implied that the said requirement of
furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person
as soon as after his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till
the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned
Senior Counsel Mr Singhvi for the appellant that the said
judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively
cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it
would be necessary ―henceforth‖ that a copy of such written
grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a
matter of course and without exception. Hence, non-
furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of-17- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case [Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] could neither be
held to be illegal nor the action of the officer concerned in not
furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. As such,
the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds
of his arrest is a sufficient compliance of Section 19 PMLA as
also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay
Madanlal [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023)
12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929].”
34. In the aforesaid paragraph 22, the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 has
been considered, wherein, it has been held that so long as the person has
been informed by the ground of arrest, that is sufficient compliance of
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has further held
that the person arrested if he is informed or made aware orally about the
ground of arrest at the time of his arrest and furnish written communication
about the ground of arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and
within reasonable convenient and exclusive time is 24 hours of his arrest. In
view of that, it will be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of the
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act and also of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.
35. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he has refused to sign
the memo of arrest. The petitioner is an accused in another ACB case
registered by Chhattisgarh Government. Pursuant to that, preliminary enquiry
has been instituted and the petitioner has been called upon and he has
refused to appear and thereafter the FIR has been registered. Prima facie,
the petitioner knew in what case, he is being taken into custody and moreover,
merely he has refused to sign it, he has not stated that the ground has not
-18- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
been supplied to him. The document is there on the record, however, the
arrest memo was served upon the bodyguard on the same day. The
bodyguard was competent to communicate the things to the family members
and others. Further, the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 also suggests that
the lawyer of the petitioner was present before the Court and he has not
argued that the ground has not been supplied to the petitioner. Moreover, the
lawyer of the petitioner has not taken plea before the learned Court that the
petitioner has not signed the memo of arrest rather, he has taken plea of
release of the petitioner on health ground. The memo of remand was signed
by the petitioner and even signing of the remand memo by the petitioner was
not argued before the learned Court and it has been argued herein that the
Court has not considered the argument of not supplying the ground by the
ACB. The learned Court has passed the following order dated 20.05.2025:
“20.05.2025: Received FIR of A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case
No.09/2025 dated 20.05.2025 for the offence U/S- 120-B IPC
r/w 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of IPC (Corresponding
Section of BNS Sec 61(2) r/w Sec 318/336/340/316/45 and 49)
and Section 7(c)/ 12, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of PC Act
1988 (Amended in 2018) registered against accused persons
namely (i) Vinay Kumar Choubey (ii) Gajendra Singh (iii)
Sudhir Kumar (iv) Sudhir Kumar Das (v) Navendu Shekhar (vi)
Uday Kumar Das (vii) Amit Kumar (viii) Md Mohsin Kamal Rana
(ix) Smt Sheetal Kumari (x) Director of M/s Vision Hospitality
Services and Consultants Pvt Ltd (xi) Director of M/s Marshan
Innovative Security Services Pvt (xii) Neeraj Kumar Singh &
(xiii) Shyam Sharan & Others alongwith annextures.
Register it and put up 03.06.2025 awaiting Final Form
(Dictated)
Sd/-
Special Judge, ACB
Ranchi
20.05.2025: The I.O of the case Sri Santosh Kumar,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ranchi has arrested
and produced the FIR named accused persons namely 1.
Vinay Kumar Choubey, aged about 50 yrs S/o Devendra
Choubey R/o C-5, Central Ashoka Colony. Ashok Nagar, Road
-19- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
No. 3, Pin- 834002, Jharkhand, Ranchi and 2. Gajendra
Kumar Singh, aged about 54 yrs, S/o- Gopal Sharan Singh
R/o Anuj-48/49, Gautam Green Nagar, BSNL Training Centre
near Getlatu,- Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009, before me
with the help of an escort party.
The I.O. has also produced the arrest memo dated 20.05.2025
of both accused persons, medical certificate and at the time
of remand. The accused persons namely 1 Vinay Kumar
Choubey and 2. Gajendra Kumar Singh have not complained
about any ill-treatment against the escort party or officials of
investigating agency and stated that information of their arrest
have already been given to their family members.
The Ld Advocate Anil Kumar Singh representing the accused
Vinay Kumar Choubey was also present at the time of remand
and raised objection in writing during the proceeding and
submitted that the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey is suffering
from serious diseases which requires specialized treatment
and prayed that his client may be provided proper medical
facility in judicial custody.
Heard and perused the case record, there is serious allegation
against the accused persons which are cognizable and non-
bailable in nature. As such, both the accused persons namely
Vinay Kumar Choubey and Gajendra Kumar Singh are
remanded in this case for the offence punishable u/s 120-B
IPC r/w 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of IPC (Corresponding
Section of BNS Sec 61(2) r/W Sec 318/336/340/316/45 and
49) and Section 7(c)/ 12, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (a) of PC
Act 1988 (Amended in 2018) and sent to BMC Jail, Hotwar,
Ranchi. The Jail Authority is directed to provide proper
medication to the both the accused persons as per Jail manual
and take care of their human rights according to relevant
guidelines issued in this regard and produce them through
video-conferencing on 03.06.2025.
(Dictated)
Sd/-
Special Judge, ACB
Ranchi”
36. The order dated 09.06.2025 further clearly suggests that the ground
was also provided orally, which was recorded in the video form as SD card
was produced before the learned Court, which was marked as “A”. The said
order is quoted herein below:
“09.06.2025 Custody accused Gajendra Kumar Singh,
Sudhir Kumar, Sudhir Kumar Das & Neeraj Singh produced
from Jail through video-conferencing and remanded back to
jail. Custody accused Vinay Kumar Choubey is under
treatment at RIMS Ranchi and Jail Authority prays for fixing
next date to produce the accused. Put up on 23.06 2025 for
awaiting F.F.-20- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )Dictated
Sd/-
Special Judge ACB
RanchiLater on
09.06.2025 The I.O. of the case has filed a petition through
the Ld Special P.P for issuance of non-bailable warrant against
the accused Binay Kumar Singh who is not named in the FIR.
It is submitted that during the course of investigation
incriminating materials surfaced against many non-FIR named
accused persons demonstrating their direct involvement in the
offences and one of those suspected accused is Binay Kumar
Singh, and as a result of this the I.O. of the case has issued
notice under section 35(3) notice under BNSS on 26.05.2025
with a direction to appear in the ACB office on 30.05.2025 at
11.00 A.M but he sent a reply on 29.05.2025 wherein he
stressed on his busy schedule and provided copies of the air
tickets, but not the pre-scheduled appointments with his
doctors except one prescription dated 29.05.2025 and failed
to appear in compliance of the notice. The Spl P.P submitted
that further on dated 03.06.2025 a notice under Section 35(3)
was issued for his appearance on 06.06.2025, but he once
again did not appeared and sent a un-signed reply on mobile
number of the I.O. and stated that he wants to send his
delegate and is avoiding his physical appearance and
participation in the investigation and his conduct is very non-
cooperative, suspicious and doubtful.
The Special P.P. of ACB submitted that the accused
Binay Kumar Singh in his replies has referred to the
cancellation of the air ticket to London so as to cooperate in
investigation but his, assurance to cooperate is a ploy to
deceive the police and he may leave the country any time. The
Special PP further submitted that the accused is unwilling to
get himself identified and wants to hide the real facts and
evidences of this case and therefore stressing on sending his
representative which is in breach of Section 35(6) BNSS and it
is believed that he is engaged in destroying the evidences and
even the claim of multiple and serious illness necessitating
immediate medical intervention is not supported by any
documentary evidence and submitted that the role of the
accused Binay Kumar Singh is at a very crucial stage and his
presence before the I.O. is necessity for ascertainment of
complete truth for effective investigation and prayed that non
bailable warrant of arrest may be issued against the accused.
Heard, persued the case record of case diary, prayer is
allowed. O/c is directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest
against Binay Kumar Singh. Put up on date fixed.
Dictated
Sd/-
-21- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
Special Judge ACB
RanchiLater on
09.06.2025 The Special P.P filed three seperate petitions for
remanding the accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar Das,
Sudhir Kumar & Neeraj Kumar Singh, the copies of the petition
have been duly served to the Ld counsels on behalf of the
accused persons. Also a petition has been filed on behalf of
the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey through his Ld counsel for
protest for not further extend the remand of the petitioner
Vinay Kumar Choubey in absence of any written prayer of ACB.
Heard, put up all these petitions on 10.06.2025 only for
hearing.
Further a petition for rectification in memo of arrest of
accused Sudhir Kumar Das has been filed by the I.O. of the
case, which is duly forwarded by the Spl P.P of ACB, Ranchi.
Seen, prayer is allowed. Olc is directed to make necessary
correction.
Further a petition has been filed by the I.O. regarding
submission of the micro SD card Marked “A” in a sealed
envelope, related to the video of explanation of ground of
arrest to the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey and Gajendra
Singh. Heard, Let micro SD card Marked “A” in a sealed
envelope be handed over to the I.O. for keeping it in safe
custody in ACB Malkhana to be produced before the court as
and when required.
Dictated
Sd/-
Special Judge ACB
Ranchi”
In the above order, explanation of ground of arrest to the petitioner is
found to be explained in the form of video which has been brought on record
by way of SD card and the learned Court has directed to keep the same in
the ACB Malkhana.
37. Even if it is accepted that the said SD card is not provided to the
petitioner, however, oral communication of ground of arrest is proved in light
of the production of the said video by way of SD card, which has been
accepted by the learned Court.
38. Further, the station diary is contained at page 39 of the supplementary
-22- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the ground of arrest has
been provided to the petitioner before the arrest and in the said paragraph,
it has also been disclosed that the videography has also been made of
explaining all the grounds and it has been recorded in the SD card. Looking
into the said station diary, prima facie, it appears that there is no manipulation
as the words are not appeared to be inserted in a particular paragraph and
on the same day at 15:35 hours, the wife of the petitioner was also informed
about the arrest by the ACB, which has also come in the station diary. Thus,
as per the station day, it prima facie appears that no interpolation has been
made.
39. In the aforesaid background, the document on the record clearly
suggests that the petitioner has been informed about the ground of arrest
and even the lawyer has not argued that the ground has not been supplied
and the petitioner has signed the remand memo without any protest. The
petitioner is a senior IAS officer. If he has chosen not to sign the memo of
arrest, he was competent to at least provide his protest in the remand order
and thereafter to sign.
40. The judgments are applicable in the facts and circumstances of each
case. This Court initially has clearly opined that so far as Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS/Section 50 of the
Cr.P.C. is concerned, that is the requirement and if that is not followed,
certainly the Court is required to interfere with and that is ratio of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar and Prabir Purkayastha
(supra).
41. Further, the communication has to be made in clear terms and that has
-23- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
been further discussed at paragraph 13 of the judgment passed in the case
of Vihaan Kumar (supra).
42. Further, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no
person shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to procedure
established by law.
43. On production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is
also required to examine whether the reasons given by the Investigating
Officer are justified on the material placed before him by the Investigating
Officer. Moreover, simple opinion is not sufficient. It must be supported by
materials on record giving rise to such opinion. To that extent, the learned
Magistrate is required to make judicial enquiry, then the Magistrate can only
authorize intention of the arrested accused.
44. The material on record such as production warrant, wherein, ground
is disclosed, hearing providing to the learned counsel of the petitioner wherein
he has not argued that ground of arrest has not been pointed and only he
has argued about health of the petitioner and signing by the petitioner on the
remand order by the margin of the same without any objection and station
diary which speaks of providing the ground in writing and orally also and
recorded SD memory card and information provided to the wife of the
petitioner clearly suggest that the procedure has been followed.
45. This is not a regular bail application. On the ground of illegal arrest,
the prayer is also made to release. When procedure found to be followed,
the second prayer of release of the petitioner on that ground cannot
be allowed.
46. The case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of
-24- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
Pankaj Bansal (supra), the petitioner challenged his arrest on the ground
that he was not informed of the reasons of his arrest, as mandated by Section
19 of the P.M.L.A. But while referring to Section 19 of the P.M.L.A. and the
judgment passed in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and
V. Senthil Balaji v. State represented by Deputy Director, reported in
(2024) 3 SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that accused must be
informed of the ground of arrest. In the case in hand, there is sufficient
material on record of informing the petitioner the grounds of arrest. In India,
the law mandates that the ground of arrest must be communicated to the
arrested person and this communication ideally be immediate. However, a
short delay in informing the person of the reason for arrest is permissible and
a delay upto 24 hours is often considered acceptable.
47. Further, the case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that arrest
is illegal if the arrested person is not informed of the ground of arrest as
mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, whereas, in the
case in hand, ground of arrest has been informed to the arrested person
within 24 hours of his arrest. Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Kishor Arora (supra) while the written ground
need not be furnished immediately at the time of arrest, they must be
provided within 24 hours.
48. What has been discussed herein above, the materials on record clearly
suggest that the petitioner knew the facts and even the grounds of arrest
have been provided. The production warrant contained at page 147 further
suggests that the grounds are there.
-25- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:23985 )
49. In the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, the Court comes to a
conclusion that the grounds of arrest have been provided to the petitioner as
well as to his wife, which has come in the station diary and further to the
petitioner on the next day however i.e. one hour late of 24 hours. Only
because he has received the same on the next day, it cannot be said that the
petitioner was not knowing the things. The facts as discussed herein above
clearly suggest that the petitioner knew about the grounds of arrest and it
has also come in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
-26- Cr.M.P. No. 1280 of 2025