Arrested persons must get adequate time to consult lawyer before remand: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on February 4 held that arrested persons must given the grounds for arrest immediately upon arrest and that they must be given adequate time to consult their lawyer before remand hearings [Marfing Tamang @ Maaina Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi)]..This is to ensure that arrested persons have a meaningful opportunity to challenge their remand to police or judicial custody, the Court explained. A Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani observed that Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) calls on the police or any other agency making an arrest without a warrant to "forthwith" communicate the grounds for such arrest."The word 'forthwith' appearing in section 50 Cr.P.C. mandates the Arresting Officer to serve upon an arrestee the grounds of arrest simultaneously with the issuance, or as part, of the arrest memo," Justice Bhambani held.He opined that this is the only legal interpretation possible to ensure that accused persons are not deprived of their liberty mechanically or needlessly..The Court added that sufficient time must be given to arrestees even after the grounds of arrest have been served on them in writing to enable them to consult their lawyers. "In order to bring abundant clarity in the matter, this court would also observe that sufficient time must given to an arrestee after the grounds of arrest have been served upon him in writing, to enable the arrestee to engage and confer with legal counsel, the test being that the arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand to police custody or judicial custody," the Court said..Grounds of arrest must be communicated immediately upon arrest. The arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand.Delhi High Court.The Court made these observations while hearing a plea filed by a man named Marfing Tamang (petitioner) challenging a May 2024 trial court order that remanded him to police custody in a rape case..The petitioner was the manager of an establishment. He was accused of being involved in the sexual abuse and exploitation of victims and of benefiting financially from these activities. Based on these allegations, a criminal case was registered against him and he was arrested. On May 18, 2024, a trial court remanded him to police custody for two days. On May 20, 2024, the trial court remanded him to judicial custody for 14 days.The petitioner challenged these remand orders as well as his arrest before the High Court. .His counsel argued that his arrest and remand violated various caselaws. He submitted that the remand order of May 18 incorrectly stated that the petitioner was arrested at 6:30 PM on May 17, 2024. This contradicted the status report filed by the Investigating Officer, which mentioned that the petitioner had arrived at the police station around 11:30 AM that day on the instructions of police officials.The counsel further argued that the remand application fails to specify the exact offences alleged against the petitioner, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 50, CrPC (now replaced by Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)..The State countered that the grounds of arrest were served on the petitioner on May 18 at 4:40 PM. The State’s counsel added that there is no legal obligation for the grounds of arrest to be included in the remand application..After hearing the arguments, the High Court ruled that the petitioner’s arrest was unlawful due to non-compliance with Section 50, CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, as he was not immediately informed of the grounds for his arrest.The magistrate’s decision to remand the petitioner to police custody was also set aside, as he was given the grounds of arrest only an hour before the remand hearing, thereby depriving him of a fair opportunity to contest his detention."Furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing just about an hour before the remand hearing cannot possibly be due or adequate compliance of the requirements of section 50 Cr.P.C., which mandates that grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee forthwith that is to say simultaneously and immediately upon the arrest of such person," the Court held. .The Court proceeded to order the petitioner’s release from custody.Advocates Adit S Pujari and Shaurya Mittal appeared for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor Utkarsh appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]