ADVERTISEMENT
Uttarakhand High Court
Ravi Kant vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1846
Judgment Delivered on:18.03.2026
Judgment Reserved on:18.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024
Ravi Kant ......Revisionist
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Revisionist assisted by Ms.
Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the CBI.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist
challenging the legality of the remand order dated 09.10.2024 passed
by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun, in relation to FIR
No. RC0072023S0006, registered at Police Station CBI, SPE,
Dehradun, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The revisionist has also prayed that his arrest be
declared illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and that he be
released from judicial custody forthwith.
2. The case of the investigating agency, as reflected from the record, is
that the above-mentioned FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, SPE, Dehradun, in connection with alleged offences
1
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
relating to criminal conspiracy and forgery punishable under the
aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
3. During the course of investigation, the revisionist came to be arrested
by the investigating agency. After his arrest, the revisionist was
produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was remanded to
judicial custody by order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special
Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun.
4. The revisionist has assailed the legality of the said remand order
primarily on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal and
unconstitutional. According to the revisionist, at the time of his arrest
the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in writing, which
according to him constitutes a violation of the safeguards guaranteed
under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the settled legal
position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to
communication of grounds of arrest.
5. It is the case of the revisionist that in the absence of proper
communication of the grounds of arrest, the arrest itself becomes illegal
and any consequential order of remand passed by the Magistrate would
also stand vitiated.
6. On the strength of the above submissions, the revisionist has
approached this Court by way of the present criminal revision seeking
setting aside of the remand order dated 09.10.2024 and praying that his
arrest be declared illegal and unconstitutional, with a further direction
for his immediate release from judicial custody.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the arrest of
the revisionist is illegal and unconstitutional as the mandatory
safeguards contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India were
not complied with at the time of arrest.
2
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
8. It is submitted that the constitutional mandate requires that an arrested
person must be informed of the grounds of arrest, and such
communication must be meaningful and effective so as to enable the
arrested person to understand the basis of the accusation against him
and to prepare his defence.
9. Learned counsel submits that in the present case the grounds of arrest
were never communicated to the revisionist in writing at the time of
arrest, nor was any document containing the grounds of arrest supplied
to him. It is argued that mere arrest or production before the Magistrate
without proper communication of the grounds of arrest is a direct
infringement of the safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of
the Constitution of India.
10. It is further submitted that the requirement of furnishing the
grounds of arrest in writing has been authoritatively recognised by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union
of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, wherein it has been held that furnishing the
grounds of arrest in writing is an important safeguard flowing from
Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2356, has clarified the legal position and has held that the grounds of
arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language
understood by him, and that failure to comply with this requirement
renders the arrest illegal and violative of the constitutional mandate.
12. It is argued that the requirement of communicating the grounds of
arrest is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive constitutional
protection designed to safeguard personal liberty. Any violation of this
mandate strikes at the root of the legality of the arrest itself.
3
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
13. Learned counsel submits that in the present case the investigating
agency failed to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the
revisionist and, therefore, the arrest is rendered illegal. It is further
submitted that once the arrest itself is illegal, the remand order dated
09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun cannot be sustained in
law.
14. It is therefore argued that the impugned remand order deserves to
be set aside and the revisionist is entitled to be released from judicial
custody forthwith, as his continued detention is the result of an arrest
made in violation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and
22 of the Constitution of India.
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Central
Bureau of Investigation submits that the present revision is devoid of
merit and the arrest of the revisionist was carried out strictly in
accordance with law.
16. It is submitted that the principal contention raised by the
revisionist regarding alleged non-communication of the grounds of
arrest is factually incorrect. Learned counsel submits that the revisionist
was duly informed of the allegations against him at the time of arrest
and the relevant documents placed on record clearly reflect the basis on
which the arrest was effected.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the constitutional
requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is that the
arrested person must be made aware of the grounds of arrest in such a
manner that he is able to understand why he has been arrested and is
able to defend himself. It is argued that the provision does not prescribe
any rigid format for communicating such grounds.
18. It is further submitted that the legal position in this regard has
been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v.
4
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, wherein it has been held that the
requirement of informing the grounds of arrest is satisfied if sufficient
knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest is
imparted to the arrested person. According to the respondent, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the mode and method of
communication must be such that the object of the constitutional
safeguard is achieved.
19. Learned counsel further ccontended that the requirement of
informing the grounds of arrest must be assessed in the context of the
factual circumstances of each case, and that the essential requirement is
that the arrested person should be made aware of the allegations
forming the basis of his arrest.
20. It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions has also observed that where the arrested person is made
aware of the allegations and is able to seek legal remedy, procedural
objections regarding the mode of communication of the grounds of
arrest cannot automatically render the custody illegal.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in the
present case the arrest memo itself records the essential facts
constituting the offence, including the allegations against the
revisionist, and the same was supplied to him at the time of arrest.
According to the respondent, the contents of the arrest memo
sufficiently informed the revisionist of the basis on which he was being
arrested.
22. It is further submitted that the revisionist was produced before the
competent Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody in
accordance with law. The remand order dated 09.10.2024 was passed
by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, after considering the material placed
before the court.
5
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
23. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the arrest in
the present case was effected prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, and
therefore the legal position as clarified subsequently cannot be
retrospectively applied so as to invalidate the arrest.
24. On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the arrest of the revisionist was lawful and
there is no violation of the safeguards contained in Articles 21 and 22
of the Constitution of India. It is therefore submitted that the present
criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
25. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
26. The principal question which arises for consideration in the
present criminal revision is whether the arrest of the revisionist suffers
from illegality on account of non-compliance with the constitutional
requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest as mandated under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and whether on that basis the
remand order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Special Judicial
Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun deserves to be set aside.
27. Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that no person who is
arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds of such arrest. The object of this constitutional
safeguard is to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the
basis of his arrest so that he may effectively exercise his right to seek
legal remedies including bail and to prepare his defence.
28. The jurisprudence relating to communication of grounds of arrest
has undergone certain developments through various decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7
SCC 576, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that furnishing
6
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
written grounds of arrest is a vital safeguard and held that ordinarily a
copy of such grounds should be provided to the arrested person.
29. Subsequently, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5
SCC 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the constitutional
mandate under Article 22(1) is satisfied if the arrested person is
informed of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest in a
meaningful manner, so that the object of the constitutional safeguard is
achieved. The Court emphasised that the manner of communication
must effectively convey the substance of the accusation.
30. From the above decisions, it is evident that the fundamental
requirement is that the arrested person must be informed of the basic
facts constituting the grounds of arrest, and such information must be
conveyed in a manner that enables him to understand the allegations
against him.
31. It is also well settled that there exists a distinction between the
"reasons for arrest" and the "grounds of arrest". The reasons for arrest
are generally the statutory considerations which justify the necessity of
arrest, whereas the grounds of arrest consist of the basic factual
allegations which constitute the offence attributed to the arrested
person.
32. In the present case, the record indicates that the arrest of the
revisionist was followed by preparation of the arrest memo, wherein the
essential facts constituting the alleged offence were recorded. The
arrest memo indicates that the arrest was made in connection with the
alleged commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to FIR No.
RC0072023S0006 registered at Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun.
33. The arrest memo further records the substance of the allegations
forming the basis of the arrest. The said document was admittedly
supplied to the revisionist at the time of arrest.
7
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
34. In the considered opinion of this Court, once a written document
containing the essential factual allegations forming the basis of the
arrest is supplied to the arrested person, the requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest in writing stands substantially
complied with. The constitutional mandate does not require that the
grounds of arrest must necessarily be recorded on a separate document
distinct from the arrest memo.
35. The object of Article 22(1) is to ensure that the arrested person is
made aware of the accusations forming the basis of the arrest. If such
information is conveyed through the arrest memo or any
contemporaneous document supplied to the accused, the requirement of
communication of grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been
violated.
36. In the present case, the revisionist was informed of the
allegations forming the basis of the arrest and was produced before the
competent Magistrate in accordance with law. The remand order dated
09.10.2024 was thereafter passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate,
C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
37. In view of the material placed on record, this Court is unable to
accept the contention of the revisionist that the arrest was effected in
violation of the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of
the Constitution of India.
38. Consequently, the foundation on which the present criminal
revision has been filed, namely the alleged illegality of the arrest and
the consequential invalidity of the remand order, cannot be sustained.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist that his arrest was
effected in violation of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
8
SPONSORED
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1846
The record indicates that the revisionist was informed of the
allegations forming the basis of his arrest and the relevant document
containing the essential factual allegations was supplied to him at the
time of arrest. In such circumstances, the requirement of
communication of the grounds of arrest cannot be said to have been
violated.
Consequently, the remand order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the
Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I./Second Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun, in relation to FIR No.
RC0072023S0006 registered at Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun,
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:18.03.2026
NR/
9
Criminal Revision No.945 of 2024, Ravi Kant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-
Ashish Naithani J.