PRABIR PURUKAYESTHA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

FACTS   

• A property at Lodhi colony in New Delhi was raided by the police officers of a special cell, which belonged to the appellant  Prabir Purakayestha . 
• By profession the appellant is the editor in chief of a digital news portal and the property in question used to serve as the headquarters for the said digital news portal. 
• The raid was against FIR no.224 of 2023 on the date 17th august of 2023 lodged at the special cell police station. The FIR charged the property under section 13,16,17,18,22c of unlawful activities(prevention) act 1967 read with section 153a And 120B of IPC. 
• Along with seizure of numerous documents of the company and the other employees the appellant was arrested on 3rd october 2023.vide arrest memo prepared by the special cell police station. 
• After bringing the appellant to the learned additional session judges court at patiala house court on 4th october 2023 he was remanded for 7 days police custody  by the order of the court. 
• The appellant challenged his arrest and police custody remand (which was granted on 4th October 2023) by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7278 of 2023 in the Delhi High Court.The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejected his challenge on 13th October 2023.Now, the appellant has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court’s order. 

ARGUMENTS:  

• Learned senior counsel highly criticised the order as the representative of the appellant 
• The appellants counsel argued that the FIR was registered without concrete proof and only based on speculations, that the Fir lacks any substance to the allegation. He also mentioned that the copy of the Fir was given to the appellant at much later stage and that it is purely made up without any truth, fundamental facts or material warranting registration of the same. 
• The statement of the appellants council also highlighted severe procedural lapse in the remand process which showcases that he was denied crucial legal rights. The council stated that police got the remand order accepted early in the morning where the signature of the official order shows the time of 6 am providing evidence of being accepted around that time. But before the remand order was accepted the appellant was not provided with the copy of the FIR nor he was informed of the reason and accusations against him which prevented his advocate from seeking bail , violating his legal right. He argued that the officials have violated the article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and section 50 of CRPC.He also referred to the SC ruling of the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India  which ruled that passing multiple remand orders does not automatically make illegal arrest valid. As he argued that section 19(1) of PMLA is similar to 43B(1) of UAPA making the ruling applicable to this case.  
• The council also alleged the officers in charge of illegally detaining the appellant as he was confined overnight before producing him to the court the next day morning without informing the appellants lawyer and arranging another lawyer for him, indicating that the procedure was manipulated making the custody illegal. 
• The council also alleged the officers to forge the FIR under which the arrest had taken place, he alleged the officers to register a new FIR with fake allegations to bypass the High Court protection as the previous one had similar allegations to an earlier EOW ( economic offences wing) FIR in which the appellant had already got protection from Delhi High court by the order of 7th july 2021. 

 Counter arguments :- 

• SHRI SURYA PRAKASH V. RAJU , HONORABLE ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA  , The council for the respondent counter argued that- 

• The Pankaj Bansal judgement case is prospectively applicable tha is it only applies to the arrests and the remands that happens after the judgement not the ones before the judgement. 
• He argued that the Pankaj bansal case was uploaded only later the  day after the the applicant was remanded to the police custody that was 4th october 2023, the arresting officer could not have followed the direction since the ruling was not publicly available. 
• Respondent  also claimed in contradiction to the appellants claims he stated that the remand took place after 7 am. Which weakens the appellants argument. 
• He also dismissed the claims of the violation of article 22(1) and article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution by the appellant, by stating that, there is no requirement in law that the grounds of arrest must be given in writing mere informing of the grounds to the accused is sufficient to fulfill legal requirement. 
• He also stated that the right to legal representation was respected by the respondents as the relative of the appellant was informed and it was him who informed the legal representative of the appellant. He also mentioned that the legal representative did raise an objection via whatsapp of the head constable  to the police custody remand, and the remand judge noted his objection. Since the objection was considered the order was not illegal. And also that the chargesheet has been filed and any illegality and irregularity in the police remand and arrest does not affect the case , hence the appellant can not claim he was treated unfairly now. 
• ASG also urges that judicial acts are presumed to be correct and since the remand order states that appeallents advocate was heard and the grounds of arrest was convayes then it should not be questioned .  

Issues  

The issues that were formulated from the case was  

1. Legality of the arrest – due to violation articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.  
2. Validity of the remand order – due to denial of legal assistance and accusation of tempering of the order. 
3. Failure to provide FIR copy – due to violation of fundamental rights under ART. 20,21,22. 
4. Retrospective or prospective effect of the recited judgement – as the case was uploaded after the remand order  
5. Judicial presumption of correctness- as the order was passed by a judge. 
6. Impact of the chargesheet filing on the remand order- if the irregularities are considered cured 
7. Interpretation of the art.22(5)- whether the grounds must be provided in writing. 

ANALYSIS  

• The appellant was arrested and his resident and workspace had been raided under an FIR accused him of offences under   

     UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT 1967  – Section 13 – punishment of upto 7 years for unlawful activities defined in section 2(o) of the act  

““unlawful activity”, in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise),— (i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or (ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or (iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India” 

-section 16  

It states punishment of terrorist acts is 5 years to life imprisonment for non death matters and upto death penalty if causes death. 

-section 17  

Which states punishment for raising funds for terrorist activities which is from 5 years to life imprisonment. 

-section18  

Punishment of conspiracy to commit  terrorist acts  

-Section22c  

If a company or organization is involved in an offence under UAPA every person in charge shall be liable. 

READ WITH IPC 

Section 153A – promoting enmity between different groups. 

Section 120B- criminal conspiracy. 

• Article 22(1) of the constitution of India provides that a person cannot be detained without being informed of the reasons for their arrest and must be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of their choice. 
• Section 50 of CrPC also mandates that a police officer must inform the arrest person of the reason for their arrest and their right to bail if applicable  
• The court held that the mere reading out of the grounds are not sufficient as the arrested person might not recall them accurately and written communication of the grounds is necessary . 
• Section 19(1) of the prevention of money laundering and section 43(B) of the UAPA contain identical language regarding the duty to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest but the court rejected the argument that the minor differences in these laws affect the constitutional mandate of article 22(1). The golden rule of interpretation was applied thus both shall be uniformly applied. 
• It is further clarified that any arrest made without providing written grounds is unconstitutional and illegal, which applies to any law without exception. This safeguard ensured this arrested person can defend themselves legally , oppose illegal detention and seek bail effectively   

PRECEDENT ANALYSIS  

• PANKAJ BANSAL V. UOI  

Sc ruled that arrested persons must be provided with written grounds of arrest as per section 22 (1) of the constitution . 

The appellant argued that successive remand order can not validate illegal arrest in the first place. 

• V. SENTHIL BALAJI CASE 

Non compliance with the requirement of written grounds of arrest mandates immediate release  

• HARIKISAN V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Grounds of detention must be in writing and in a language understood by the detenue. 

• LALLUBHAI JIGIBHAI PATEL V. UOI 

Verbal explanation violates article 22 (1) 

• PMLA section 19(1) and UAPA section 43b(1) 

Both laws modify sec 167 CrPC indicating a parallel legal framework, to that the SC held that the requirement of written gounds under PMLA and applies to UAPA

•   Not providing written grounds violates art.21,22,20 of the Indian Constitution. 
• In RAM KISHORE ARORA V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT  the court held the pankaj bansal case to be prospective in operation but as the remand order was passed later then it is applicable in this case. 

COURT RULING 

• Authorities must provide reasons for arrest at the time of arrest, any delay in providing this information rendered the arrest illegal. 
• A copy of the FIR must be provided to the accused and cannot be kept secret unless justified under law, acting otherwise violates the due process. 
• The accused own lawyer must be given an opportunity to contest the remand application if the remand is passed before the lawyer is infirmed then it is invalid. 
• Any alteration of judicial records raises serious concerns. And the court must ensure the transparency of the matter. 
• If an FIR on the same facts already exists a new FIR cannot be registered to initiate another case, which will strike down the second FIR as invalid. 
• Filing a chargesheet or getting judicial remand later does not make an illegal arrest valid rather it deems to make the subsequent procedure tainted. 

CONCLUSION 

The court ruled that the arrest and remand of the appellant were illegal due to violation of constitutional and statutory requirements. The main issue was that the appellant was not informed in writing about the specific grounds of arrest before being remanded to custody violating article 22 of the Constitution and legal mandates under the CrPC. The judgement also clarified the difference between reason for arrest and grounds of arrest, where the reason for arrest are generally applicable to any accused. There the grounds of arrest must be specific to the accused detailing the facts justifying the arrest. Since the authorities failed to provide written grounds of arrest the entire custodial process was deemed invalid, and the appellants arrest and remand orders were quashed. However because a charge sheet has already been filed, the court granted bail instead of unconditional release. It is to understand that the ruling only deals with procedural illegality not the appellant is guilty or innocent.