- (1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. This bail application has been moved by one Vikram who has been an accused in offences punishable under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. Police Station. Ghazipur District Lucknow.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate have been heard. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case provisions of Section 50 (1) of Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India have not been followed inas much as the grounds and the full particulars of the offences were not disclosed to him at the time of his arrest. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate the particulars of offences were indicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest which fact is corroborated by entry in the general diary and in the affidavit of the arresting officer. A perusal of file will go to show that accused Vikram was arrested on 4-5-1993. Annexuie-1 to the bail application is the F. I. R. which has been lodged against the applicant. Annexure-2 is the copy of recovery memo. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 3-5- 1993 and a report of that inci dent was lodged on the same day at about 10. 30 a. m. A perusal of Annexure-2 recovery memo, goes to show that Vikram was arrested on 4-5-1993 at about 9. 00 p. m. He admitted to have committed the crime and on the pointing out of Vikram, one knife was recovered and statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. was also recorded. In the present case the accused has also tiled an affidavit stating therein that he has not committed any offence and he was arrested by the police from his house and he was not disclosed any ground on which be was being arrested. He has further stated that no knife was recovered on his pointing out. As against this Sri A. N. Shukla who is arresting officer also filed an affidavit stating therein that the accused was arrested as he was wanted in crime No. 262/93 under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. and he had committed the murder of deceased Iqbal. The accused was told the reasons of his arrest at the time of his arrest. He also, on being questioned, became ready to get the knife recovered. The knife was got recovered and recovery memo was prepared on the spot and a copy of the same was given to the accused whose signatures were also obtained on the memo. A copy of Fard Baramdgi is also attached to the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate have placed reliance on certain case law decided by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. , 1987 L. L. J. 273. In that case the petitioner was arrested and his licensed gun was seized by the police. A recovery memo was also prepared at the spot. A ground was taken that on arrest the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India or of full particulars of the offence as required by Sec tion 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A counter-affidavit was also filed by the Station Officer of P. S. Bisawan Distt. Sitapur. In the general diary it was stated that the ground of the arrest was stated. It was stated that "giraftaari ka karan bataya gaya" In this case a reference was also made of the case of Subhash Bhandhari v. State of U. P. , 1986 LLJ 271, wherein an affidavit of Sub-Inspector Gajendra Pal Singh was filed before the Sessions Judge stating that the accused committed the murder of the uncle of Raj Kumar resident of village Bargawan on 9-6-1986 at 7. 00 a. m. before the shop of Katori by firing at him and, therefore, he was arrested after commit ting the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. On the basis of these facts the Court observed as under: "we do not find it possible to accept this statement made in the affidavit of S. L Gajendra Pal Singh having regard to the fact no such particulars are mentioned in the recoveiy memo, Annexure C-A-2, counter-affidavit and indeed no mention what so ever has been made in the General Diary entry, Annexure C-A-I. Perhaps it is an after thought of S. I. Gajendra Pal Singh and we cannot proceed on this statement. The case must proceed on the basis that the petitioner had not been informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of his arrest in the sense which we have indicat ed above. " The next in the series is Ram Chandra alias Munai v. Superintendent Central Jail, Naini and others, 1982 LLJ 160. This case has also been decided by a Division Bench of this Court. In that case the same grounds were taken. In that case it was stated that the Sub-Inspector who arrested the accused did not inform him the grounds of arrest. A counter-affidavit was filed by one Ram Autar Sharma, Incharge of Police Station, Handia, in which it was mentioned that on being arrested the petitioner was immediately informed about the grounds for his detention and this fact was clear from the entry made in the general diary. The averments were sworn on the bas is of perusal of record and not personal knowledge. The G. D. which was placed before the court it did not contain any entry that Sub-Inspector who arrested the petitioner had forthwith communicated to him either the parti culars of the offence for which he was being detained or the ground thereof. Therefore the court accepted the contention of the petitioner that the Sub-Inspector who arrested him did not communicate to him the grounds of his detention.
(3.) THE next case is Hazari Lal v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 LLJ 230 ). This case has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in which the plea was taken that the detention of the petitioner was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. In that case reliance was also placed on the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. , (supra ). In that case considering the facts of the case the Court held that the illegality which had been committed by the arresting officer cannot be cured. In that case one Vijay Bahadur Singh also filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties. Even the allegations which were mentioned in the counter affidavit about the disclosure of the full particulars of the offence were not relied upon by the Court. It was observed that it cannot be said even on the basis of this counter-affidavit that the grounds/reasons were disclosed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest in conformity with the regulations of law. Thus from this case it comes out that even if an affidavit has been filed by the arresting officer stating therein that he had disclosed full grounds of arrest to the accused, even then it is not sufficient unless the same is also mentioned in detail in General diary. The next case is Shanna alias Lulla v. State of U. P. and others, 1986 LLJ 209. In that case also the plea was taken that the compliance 01 Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. has not been done. In that case a counter- affidavit was filed by Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Wazirganj, Lucknow stating therein that at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 31-8-1986 at 10. 30 a. m. for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act the petitioner was found to have possessed an illicit knife. There was a specific averment of the petitioner that he had not been informed the details of oil'ence in which he was arrested. After considering the relevant law on the point the Division Bench of this Court held as under: "section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that every police officer arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. The duty is cast upon the arresting officer to communicate the full parti culars of the offence to the person arrested; it is not for the person arrested merely to draw his own inferences. Moreover every knife is not as illicit knife; and is cannot be safely said that because a knife was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, he should have known that his possession thereof was illegal. In this situation, the detention of the petitioner is illegal and the petition must succeed. ";