Delhi High Court
Inder Pal Singh Gaba vs National Investigation Agency on 29 October, 2024
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th OCTOBER, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 & CRL.M.A. 17322/2024
INDER PAL SINGH GABA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Khatri and Mr. Sahil
Khurana, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S V Raju, ASG with Ms.
Kanchan, Sr. PP, Ms. Shilpa Singh,
SPP for NIA, Mr. Samrat Goswami,
Advocate and Mr. Rakesh Roshan,
Inspector CLO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the remand
Order dated 25.04.2024 and subsequent remand orders dated 30.04.2024 and
03.05.2024 and further declare the arrest of the Petitioner in relation to FIR
No. RC-05/2023/NIA/DLI registered by the NIA as illegal and consequently
release the Petitioner from custody.
2. It is stated that FIR No.80/2024 dated 23.03.2023 registered at Police
Station Special Cell, Delhi for offences under Section 109, 147, 148, 149,
120B, 448, 452, 325 IPC read with Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984, Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 1 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
Honours Act, 1971 was registered on the basis of an information received
from the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
enclosing a report submitted by the Assistant Personal and Welfare Officer,
High Commission of India, London, United Kingdom. On the report of the
High Commission, the FIR was registered which states that on Sunday,
19.03.2023, at about 13:45 hours (GMT), a crowd of 50-60 protestors had
assembled in front of the High Commission building. They were carrying
yellow flags being used by Khalistani separatists.
3. On seeing the crowd, the Assistant Personal and Welfare Officer,
High Commission of India, London, United Kingdom rushed towards the
reception and immediately informed the DPG (Diplomatic Protection
Group) through SOS phone call about the emerging situation and requested
for urgent deployment of adequate police force to prevent any violence. It is
stated that one Avatar Singh @ Khanda, who is an Indian national carrying
Passport No.F8777260 and one Gurcharan Singh (wearing saffron turban),
both of whom were recognized by him since they were frequently seen near
the High Commission, were amongst the leaders of the violent mob and
were instigating the mob by shouting anti-India and Khalistani slogans.
4. The report states that the Assistant Personal and Welfare Officer,
High Commission of India, London, United Kingdom saw one of the
protesters was climbing up the balcony where the Indian flag was hoisted. It
is stated that one Jasvir Singh from Slough was also helping the rioters in
climbing up the balcony. The report states that the Assistant Personal and
Welfare Officer, High Commission of India, London, United Kingdom
along with Niraj Kumar Singh, Junior Warrant Officer, Air Wing of the
High Commission rushed towards the flag post in the balcony. It is stated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 2 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
that on reaching the balcony, it was seen that one of the rioters had arrived
the balcony and he dishonourably pulled down the Indian National Flag and
was trying to pass it down towards the rioters on the sidewalk, who were
trying to tear the Indian National Flag. It is stated that some rioters started
pulling down the rope of the Indian National flag with full force. It is stated
that the flag was retrieved with great difficulty as Mr. Niraj Kumar Singh,
Junior Warrant Officer, Air Wing pulled up the rope and the flag was taken
inside safely.
5. Meanwhile, a rioter atop the balcony was handed over a yellow
Khalistani flag by his fellow protestor from below and he started waving the
Khalistani flag. He also tried putting the khalistani flag on the flag post. It is
stated that the rioter was informed that it is an unlawful activity as it was
directly aimed at secession of the integral part of the sovereign territory of
India. However, the rioters were aggressive and violent and hurled abuses. It
is stated that the Junior Warrant Officer used all his physical strength to
prevent the rioters from causing any further damage to the Indian flag or the
High Commission building. It is stated that the rioter who had climbed the
balcony and intruded in the building of the High Commission assaulted the
Junior Warrant Officer with a metallic flag pole (pipe) that he was carrying
with an intent to deter the Junior Warrant Officer from discharging his
official duty. It is stated that Mr. Niraj Kumar Singh, Junior Warrant
Officer, sustained injuries. The rioters were constantly exhorting and
motivating the ones who had reached the balcony while continuing with
slogans aimed at establishing Khalistan.
6. In the meanwhile, some protesters started hitting at the window panes
and outer glass doors of the High Commission including the main entrance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 3 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
gate with metallic rods thereby causing extensive damage to the High
Commission’s property.
7. It is stated that the rioters were continuously shouting aggressive
Khalistani slogans to intimidate and create fear in the minds of the officials
of the High Commission. In the meantime, some policemen from
metropolitan police arrived on the scene and the Junior Warrant Officer
came out from the High Commission building from the reception gate and
requested the Police to prevent the ongoing assault on the High
Commission. It is stated that the rioters after pulling down the Indian
national flag, waving Khalistani flag in its place and vandalizing the High
Commission property and causing serious injuries to the Junior Warrant
Officer and his colleague, dispersed in some time while continuing with
their threats and slogans. It is stated that the Assistant Personal and Welfare
Officer, High Commission of India, London along with the Junior Warrant
Officer were taken to the hospital.
8. Subsequently, on 22.03.2023, another protest was carried out in front
of the High Commission, which according to the Police is an extension of
the protest which took place on 19.03.2023.
9. Material on record discloses that the audio-video evidence shows the
presence and active involvement of the Petitioner in the protest of
22.03.2023. The Petitioner was seen raising anti-India slogans associating
with key organisers of the protest and engaging in activities that were
undermining the sovereignty of India.
10. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner was not identified in the
protest dated 19.03.2023. However, it is stated that he was a part of the
protest held on 22.03.2023 which according to the investigating agency is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 4 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
part of the larger conspiracy.
11. It is stated that vide CTCR Division Order No. 11011/30/2023/NIA
dated 12.04.2023 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India under Section 6(8) of the NIA Act, 2008, the Respondent/NIA was
directed to take up the investigation and resultantly the FIR being FIR No.
RC-05/2023/NIA/DLI dated 13.04.2024 for offences under Section 109,
147, 148, 149, 120B, 448, 452, 325 IPC read with Section 13 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3(1) of the Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Section 2 of the Prevention of
Insults to National Honours Act, 1971 was registered at Police Station NIA,
New Delhi.
12. Material on record discloses that a Lookout Circular was issued
against the Petitioner on 04.07.2023. It is stated that while entering India
from Pakistan, the Petitioner was detained by the Immigration Authorities at
the Attari border on 09.12.2023. Material on record discloses that during
examination he revealed that he was an active participant in the protest
which was held on 22.03.2023, which as stated earlier, as per the
prosecution, is part of the larger conspiracy which started from 19.03.2023
and continued till 22.03.2023.
13. Material on record also discloses that the mobile phone of the
Petitioner was seized and was sent to CFSL and certain incriminating
evidence, videos, photos of protest were recovered which points towards his
participation and involvement in the protest which is directed against the
country’s sovereignty and integrity. The activities of the Petitioner including
public display of a vehicle number plate symbolizing Khalistan showing his
support for secessionist movement has also been unearthed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 5 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
14. The Petitioner was brought from Amritsar to Delhi and was released
on 12.12.2023. The Petitioner was again called for joining investigation by
the NIA. The Petitioner’s Passport was also seized by the NIA. The
Petitioner filed a representation for release of his Passport and also for
details of documents containing restrictions imposed on him as he has to go
back to London. The Petitioner also filed an application for release of the
Passport and withdrawal of the Lookout Circular. The Petitioner was again
directed to join investigation on 04.04.2024 and 11.04.2024 and he was later
arrested on 25.04.2024.
15. The remand application was submitted by the Investigating Agency
and the Petitioner was remanded into custody on 25.04.2024. The
Petitioner’s remand was extended on 30.04.2024 and 03.05.2024. The
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the remand orders and also
his arrest which according to the Petitioner is illegal on the ground that:
a) The grounds of arrest were not provided to the Petitioner.
b) The information regarding remand was not given to the
Petitioner’s lawyer or to the family members.
c) The Petitioner did not participate in the protest dated 19.03.2023
as his name does not figure as a rioter on the basis of which the
entire FIR has been filed.
16. Notice was issued and replies have been filed and the matter was kept
for hearing.
17. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contends
that admittedly the Petitioner was not part of the mob which vandalized the
Indian High Commission, London on 19.03.2023. He states that not a single
averment is there against the Petitioner in the complaint given by Sh. Kiran
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 6 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
Kumar Vasant Bhosale, Assistant Personal and Welfare Officer, High
Commission of India, London. He, therefore, states that the entire
proceedings against the Petitioner in the absence of any averment in the FIR
which has been registered on the basis of incident happened on 19.03.2023
must be quashed and consequently, the Remand Orders must also be
quashed. He states that the Respondent/NIA’s FIR is based on the FIR,
No.80/2023 dated 23.03.2023, which is based on the incident dated
19.03.2023, registered on the basis of Tehrir received for the incident that
occurred on 19.03.2023. He, therefore, states that the Petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the incident in which he was never a participant.
18. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the grounds
of arrest have not been furnished to the Petitioner and, therefore, non-
furnishing of grounds of arrest to the Petitioner is fatal to any Remand
Order. He places reliance upon the Judgments passed by the Apex Court in
Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Crl)
Nos.9220-21 of 2021 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024
SCC OnLine SC 934. He states that furnishing the arrest memo alone is not
sufficient compliance of supply of grounds of arrest and, therefore, the State
has violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He further contends
that the remand application was itself not supplied to the Petitioner and the
same was only supplied to the lawyer who was actually not representing the
Petitioner. He states that the lawyer, who represented the Petitioner before
the remand Judge was not of the Petitioner’s choice and, therefore, the
supply a copy of the Remand application to the said lawyer cannot be
considered to be sufficient compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 7 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that the maximum
punishment under Section 13(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 (UAPA) entails the punishment of 07 years and, therefore, the
Petitioner ought to have been given a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C and
by not giving a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C, the Respondent/NIA has
violated the mandate of the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Arnesh
Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
20. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contends that a copy of the
FIR was not provided to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner who was
representing him and the same is fatal.
21. Per contra, learned ASG appearing for the Respondent/NIA contends
that the question of non-supply of grounds of arrest has been raised by the
Petitioner only for the first time before this Court on 26.05.2024 and it is an
afterthought of the Petitioner. He states that the said ground has been raised
by the Petitioner only after the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Prabir
Purkayastha (supra). He states that a copy of the remand application was
served on the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the remand application
contained the grounds of arrest of the Petitioner which was served within the
time prescribed under the law. He states that service of notice under Section
41A Cr.P.C does not apply to the offences committed under UAPA. For this
proposition, reliance has been placed by the learned ASG on the Judgment
passed by the Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji vs. State represented by
Deputy Director and Ors, (2024) 3 SCC 51. He states that the incident of
19.03.2023 and 22.03.2023 are part of the same transaction. He states that
originally the mob was to gather at Indian High Commission, London on
22.03.2023 but there was a change in plan and the Indian High Commission,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 8 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
London was vandalised on 19.03.2023 followed by another incident which
occurred on 22.03.2023. He states that the Petitioner was part of the
planning of both the events which took place on 19.03.2023 and 22.03.2023.
22. Learned ASG further submits that there are several incriminating
evidence against the Petitioner. He states that the Petitioner has been seen
shouting slogans in favour of Khalistan along with other Khalistani
supporters on 19.03.2023 and since the Petitioner was instrumental in
planning of the incident on 19.03.2023, the Petitioner was very much part of
dishonouring the Indian Flag by standing on the Indian Flag and crushing it
along with the other supporters. He also states that photographs of the
Petitioner along with the main accused Avtar Singh @ Khanda has been
found.
23. Learned ASG also contends that non-furnishing of FIR is not fatal
especially in cases of serious offences in UAPA etc. Reliance has been
placed by him for this proposition upon the Judgment passed by the Apex
Court in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC
473.
24. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the
material on record.
25. Material on record discloses that the Petitioner was produced before
the NIA Special Court on 25.04.2024 within the time prescribed under the
law. A copy of the remand application has been served on the learned
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner that
the copy of the remand application has been supplied to the lawyer who was
not of the choice of the Petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that
there is a Vakalatnama on record duly signed by the Petitioner in favour of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 9 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
two advocates i.e., Mr. Rohit Pratap Singh and Mr. Amit Ranjan, Advocates
who had appeared for the Petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be contended by
the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the copy of the remand
application has been supplied to the lawyer who was not of the choice of the
Petitioner. Mr. Satvinder Singh, Advocate was also engaged by the
Petitioner but only in Punjab for the purpose of getting a copy of the FIR
and it cannot be said that the remand application ought to have been served
on Mr. Satvinder Singh, Advocate. Apart from appearing for the Petitioner
for getting the copy of the FIR and for some other purpose, Mr. Satvinder
Singh, Advocate, has not filed his Vakalatnama for the Petitioner in any
other cause. On 30.04.2024, the Petitioner was represented by Mr. Arun
Khatri, Advocate, before the NIA Special Court and in this Court also on
25.06.2024.
26. The contention raised by the Petitioner that since the maximum
punishment under Section 13(1) of UAPA only entails the punishment of 07
years and, therefore, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C ought to have been
served on the Petitioner and the same is in violation of the Judgment of the
Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) cannot be accepted. Section 43B of the
UAPA prescribes the procedure of arrest, seizure etc., for offences under the
UAPA. Section 43B of the UAPA read as under:
“43B. Procedure of arrest, seizure, etc.–(1)
Any officer arresting a person under section 43A shall,
as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such
arrest.
(2) Every person arrested and article seized
under section 43A shall be forwarded without
unnecessary delay to the officer-in-charge of theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 10 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
nearest police station.
(3) The authority or officer to whom any person
or article is forwarded under sub-section (2) shall,
with all convenient dispatch, take such measures as
may be necessary in accordance with the provisions of
the Code.”
27. Section 48 of the UAPA provides for effect of Act and Rules, etc.,
inconsistent with other enactments. Section 48 of the UAPA reads as under:
“48. Effect of Act and rules, etc., inconsistent
with other enactments.–The provisions of this Act or
any rule or order made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any enactment other than this Act or any
instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment
other than this Act.”
28. A perusal of the above shows that the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), therefore, being a special enactment would
prevail over the Cr.P.C and therefore, the Judgment of the Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar (supra) cannot be said to be applicable for offences
committed under the UAPA and the maxim Generalia specialibus non
derogant would clearly apply in the present case. The Apex Court in Prabir
Purkayastha (supra) and V. Senthil Balaji (supra) has held that PMLA being
a special provision, service of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C does not
apply and the same analogy would also apply in UAPA which is also a
special provision.
29. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is the
non-supply of grounds of arrest to the Petitioner. Section 43B of UAPA
mandates that any officer arresting a person under UAPA shall inform him
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 11 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
of the grounds for arrest. Admittedly, in the present case, only a copy of
remand application has been served on the Petitioner and grounds of arrest
has not been supplied to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has placed reliance
upon the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and
Prabir Purkayastha (supra) to contend that non-supply of grounds of arrest is
violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
30. The Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) has observed as under:
“49. 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 tempering 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 W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 12 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
50. 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
accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the
order of remand dated 4th October, 2023 which vitiates
the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant.”
31. A perusal of the abovementioned paragraph indicates that the Apex
Court has distinguished between the grounds of arrest and the reasons of
arrest. The first remand application is being reproduced below:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 13 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 14 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 15 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 16 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
32. A perusal of the aforesaid remand application shows that Paragraph
Nos.2 to 8 of the said application gives the facts, details of the protest,
details of the incident and as to how the Petitioner was questioned regarding
his involvement in the protest and offence committed by the Petitioner.
Paragraph No.9 of the remand application gives the necessity of detaining
the Petitioner in custody which is for his detailed examination to unearth his
role in the conspiracy and to identify the protesters who took part in the
violent protest at High Commission of India, London. In the opinion of this
Court, the aforesaid remand application contains both the reasons and
grounds to arrest the Petitioner, thereby satisfying the mandate of Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 17 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
43B of UAPA.
33. It is also necessary at this juncture to understand the facts in the case
of Prabir Purkayastha (supra). In the said case, the Police Station Special
Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi had carried out extensive raids in connection
with FIR No.224/2023 dated 17.08.2023, registered at Police Station Special
Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 13,
16, 17, 18 and 22C of the UAPA, at the residential and official premises of
the Appellant therein who was the Director of M/s PPK Newsclick Studio
Pvt. Ltd. During the course of search proceedings, numerous documents
and digital devices belonging to the Appellant therein, the company and the
other employees of the company were seized and the Appellant therein was
arrested in connection with the said FIR. The arrest memo in that case was
in a computerised format and did not contain any column regarding the
grounds of arrest of the Appellant therein. The Appellant therein was
produced before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi and a Remand Order was passed. In the said case a copy of the
remand application had been sent over whatsapp to the learned Counsel for
the Appellant therein which according to the learned ASG did provide a
complete picture about the grounds of arrest of the Appellant therein.
However, Paragraph No.50 of the said Judgment, which has been quoted
above, does show that the Apex Court was of the opinion 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 therein or his
Counsel which is not in the present case.
34. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the
Petitioner herein has not been deprived of the information of the grounds of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 18 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
arrest as it was forwarded to his Advocate appointed by him by executing a
proper Vakalatnama which is on record. The Ld. ASG submits that this
ground has been taken by the Petitioner herein only in this Court after the
Judgment of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
This contention cannot be accepted but for the reason that a Judgment of the
Apex Court is declaratory in nature and, therefore, the fact that this ground
was not taken by the Petitioner earlier does not preclude the Petitioner to
raise this argument.
35. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that non-
furnishing of the FIR would be fatal cannot be accepted because as rightly
pointed out by the Ld. ASG that Cr.P.C and UAPA do not mandate a copy
of the FIR to be supplied by the Investigating Officer to any other person
other than the Complainant. The Apex Court in Youth Bar Association of
India (supra) has observed as under:
“11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we think it appropriate to record the requisite
conclusions and, thereafter, proceed to issue the
directions:
11.1. An accused is entitled to get a copy of the first
information report at an earlier stage than as
prescribed under Section 207 CrPC.
11.2. An accused who has reasons to suspect that he
has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be
finding place in a first information report can submit
an application through his
representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified
copy before the police officer concerned or to the
Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which
is payable for obtaining such a copy from the court. OnSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 19 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
such application being made, the copy shall be
supplied within twenty-four hours.
11.3. Once the first information report is forwarded by
the police station to the Magistrate concerned or any
Special Judge, on an application being filed for
certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall
be given by the court concerned within two working
days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with
the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207
CrPC.
11.4. The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is
sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences
pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that
category, offences under the Pocso Act and such other
offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and
if there is no such website, on the official website of the
State Government, within twenty-four hours of the
registration of the first information report so that the
accused or any person connected with the same can
download the FIR and file appropriate application
before the court as per law for redressal of his
grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there
is connectivity problems due to geographical location
or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time
can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48
hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it
is only relatable to connectivity problems due to
geographical location.
11.5. The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on
the website shall not be taken by an officer below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person
holding equivalent post. In case, the States where the
District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the
said authority. A decision taken by the police officer
concerned or the District Magistrate shall be dulySignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 20 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
communicated to the jurisdictional Magistrate
concerned.
11.6. The word “sensitive” apart from the other
aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by
the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would
also include concept of privacy, regard being had to
the nature of the FIR. The examples given with
regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative
and are not exhaustive.
11.7. If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall
not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under
Section 438 CrPC.
11.8. In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the
ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved
by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can
submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police
or any person holding the equivalent post in the State.
The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a
committee of three officers which shall deal with the
said grievance. As far as the metropolitan cities are
concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a
representation is submitted to the Commissioner of
Police, he shall constitute a committee of three officers.
The committee so constituted shall deal with the
grievance within three days from the date of receipt of
the representation and communicate it to the grieved
person.
11.9. The competent authority referred to hereinabove
shall constitute the committee, as directed hereinabove,
within eight weeks from today.
11.10. In cases wherein decisions have been taken not
to give copies of the FIR, regard being had to the
sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 21 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
accused/his authorised representative/parokar to file
an application for grant of certified copy before the
Court to which the FIR has been sent and the same
shall be provided in quite promptitude by the court
concerned not beyond three days of the submission of
the application.
11.11. The directions for uploading of FIR in the
website of all the States shall be given effect from 15-
11-2016.”
(emphasis supplied)
36. The Apex Court in Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 7 SCC 599, while dealing with the submission of the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner that merely informing the accused orally about the
grounds of arrest and making the accused read the same and obtaining his
signature thereon, and not furnishing in writing the grounds of arrest to the
accused cannot be in consonance with the provisions of the PMLA, has
observed 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 22 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 23 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
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
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] .
24. Insofar as the facts of the present case are
concerned, it is not disputed that the appellant was
handed over the document containing grounds of
arrest when he was arrested, and he also put his
signature below the said grounds of arrest, after
making an endorsement that “I have been informed
and have also read the abovementioned grounds of
arrest.” The appellant in the rejoinder filed by him has
neither disputed the said endorsement nor his
signature below the said endorsement. The only
contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel Mr
Singhvi is that he was not furnished a copy of the
document containing the grounds of arrest at the time
of arrest. Since the appellant was indisputably
informed about the grounds of arrest and he having
also put his signature and the endorsement on the said
document of having been informed, we hold that there
was due compliance of the provisions contained in
Section 19 PMLA and his arrest could neither be said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 24 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41
to be violative of the said provision nor of Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India.
The said Judgment applies to the facts of the present case as the Petitioner is
charged of an offence under UAPA.
37. In the present case, the Petitioner was arrested on 25.04.2024 and he
was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. A copy of the remand
application was supplied to the Petitioner which contained both the reasons
and grounds to arrest the Petitioner and, therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the constitutional safeguard enshrined under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India has been followed and the Impugned Remand Orders
do not contain any infirmity.
38. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, along with pending
application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
OCTOBER 29, 2024
Hsk/S. Zakir
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1783/2024 Page 25 of 25
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:12.11.2024
18:13:41