[Karnataka High Court] Grants Bail to an Accused in DRI Case as Grounds of Arrest Were Communicated Verbally and Not in Writing

Introduction

In the case of Syed Sajjad Ali v. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence[i],* *the High Court of Karnataka granted bail to Syed Sajjad Ali (‘Petitioner’) on the ground that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (‘Respondent’) had not communicated the grounds of arrest in writing.

Brief Facts

• The customs officers had recovered diamonds and foreign currencies from Accused nos. 1 & 2, who were already on default bail. The customs officers recorded the statements of Accused no. 1 & 2 under s. 108 of the Customs Act 1962 (‘Act’), which stated that the diamonds and foreign currencies were given to them by Accused No. 3, the Petitioner, on the instructions of YAM Travel, which were to be given to a person named Abbas in Dubai.

• Based on the statements recorded by Accused nos. 1 and 2, the Respondent issued a look-out notice against the Petitioner and caught him at the Mumbai Airport on 18.05.2024.

• The Petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2024. The Petitioner argued that as per s. 104 of the Act, the accused person shall be informed about the grounds of arrest. However, as per the arrest memo, the grounds of arrest were only verbally explained to the Petitioner.

• The Petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabir Purkayashta v. State[ii], in which the court held that verbal communication of grounds of arrest would be violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and s. 104 of the Act.

• The Respondent argued that the Petitioner is the main Accused who smuggled the goods illegally, whereas Accused no. 1 and 2 were only the delivery agents. The statements recorded under s. 108 of the Act are admissible in law as they are not statements recorded by police officers but by customs officers.

• The Respondent contended that in compliance with s. 104 of the Act, the arrest memo informing the grounds of arrest was issued to the Petitioner, and the remand application was served on the Petitioner on 19.05.2024. Thus, the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner.

Held

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition in favour of the Petitioner and observed as follows:

• The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.[iii] and observed that the grounds of detention/ arrest should be communicated to the detainee in writing in whichever language he understands; failure to do so would be a violation of the rights of the accused under a. 22(1) of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’).

• The High Court held that if the grounds of arrest are explained verbally, it would violate a. 22(5) of the Constitution. Thus, in the language he understands, communicating the grounds of arrest and detention to the accused in writing is an essential ingredient under the law. Therefore, the High Court observed that *prima facie *non-compliance by the Respondent vitiates the arrest and detention of the Petitioner, and the remand application would not meet the requirements of communicating the grounds of arrest.

• Hence, due to non-compliance with the essential ingredients of law during the detention and arrest, the High Court granted bail to the Petitioner under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and thus, allowed the petition on certain conditions.

Conclusion

The High Court emphasised that providing the grounds of detention or arrest in writing in a language understood by the accused is mandatory, as stipulated under a. 22(5) of the Constitution. The failure to comply with procedural requirements was deemed to be a violation of constitutional rights, thereby invalidating the arrest and detention.

It is noteworthy that in the above case, bail was granted due to a procedural lapse in the arrest process, which became grounds for bail without delving into the merits of the matter. This decision would be helpful in cases where proper arrest procedure has not been followed, and the grounds of arrest have not been communicated as mandated under the law. Thus, this decision highlights that in case of any violation and deviation from the procedure established under the law, the arrested person would be entitled to seek relief from the court.

End Notes

[i] [2024] 21 Centax 323 (Kar.).

[ii] Prabir Purkayashta v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 463.

[iii] Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 1962 SCC Online SC.

Authored by Purvi Garg, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.