Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Presiding Officer: NEHA, DHJS
CNR No. DLND01-005706-2025
Cr. Revision No. 383/25
In the matter of :-
1. Soleman Ali
S/o Sh. Khalil Ali
2. Shabana
W/o Noor Mohammad
3. Noor Mohammad
S/o Sh. Hashim Mohd.
All residents of :
A-63, Jhuggi Sanjay Camp
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. …Revisionists
Versus
State
Through SHO PS Chanakyapuri …Respondent
Date of reserving order : 18.08.2025
Date of order : 29.08.2025
O R D E R
1. This is revision petition filed u/s 399 r/w Section 397 of
CrPC (Section 438 and 440 of BNSS) against the impugned
orders dated 17.03.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC-02, New Delhi
District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in case FIR
CR No. 383/2025 Page 1 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 1 of 11 --
No.26/2025 PS Chanakyapuri.
2. Arguments already heard.
3. Ld. counsel for revisionists would argue that vide
impugned order dated 17.03.2025 Ld. JMFC disposed of remand
applications of the IO and revisionists/accused were remanded to
one day police remand. The impugned order is completely silent
whether the accused / revisionists were communicated grounds
of arrest in writing or not in compliance to Article 22(1) and (5)
r/w Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS). The impugned
order also does not mention if the accused / revisionists were
informed about their grounds of arrest in their language in view
of judgment passed in the matter of Harikisan v. State of
Maharashtra decided on 31.01.1962 by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Even the chargesheet does not mention that the revisionists /
accused were informed about grounds of arrest. Grounds of
arrest were not served in writing to the revisionists which is
grave violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of the
revisionists. The revisionists were produced for the first time
before the Court of Ld. JMFC-02 on 17.03.2025 after their arrest
and Ld. JMFC in a mechanical manner recorded in the order
dated 17.03.2025, “I am satisfied with the grounds of arrest
given by the IO. The same has been informed to the accused.” In
view of the judgments passed in several cases, if any accused is
not communicated grounds of arrest by the police in writing then
CR No. 383/2025 Page 2 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 2 of 11 --
the accused should be enlarged on bail. The impugned order is
passed in mechanical manner without going through the
documents annexed with the application for PC remand filed by
IO. The impugned order dated 17.03.2025 was passed in a most
callous manner which violated the fundamental Constitutional
rights of the revisionists without looking the primary arrest’s
documents of the revisionists, as no written grounds of arrest
were ever communicated to the revisionists and Ld. JMFC did
not acknowledge the satisfaction of the revisionists whether their
grounds of arrest were communicated to them in writing or not
at the time of their arrest by the IO of the present case. The
present revision petition was supposed to be filed till 16.06.2025
i.e. within 90 days of passing of impugned order dated
17.03.2025. However, since the chargesheet was recently filed
by the IO and and it came to the knowledge of counsel engaged
by the revisionists on 18.07.2025 after reading the orders
supplied with the copy of chargesheet and therefore, there is
delay in filing of present revision petition. The delay of 36 days
is neither intentional nor deliberate and same may be condoned
in the interest of justice. The revisionists have been in JC since
16.03.2025. They are victims of circumstances and their
constitutional rights were deliberately violated by the IO due to
their illiteracy and poor status. Hence, it is prayed that delay in
filing of revision petition may be condoned and the impugned
orders dated 17.03.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC-02 be set aside.
CR No. 383/2025 Page 3 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 3 of 11 --
4. On the other hand, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor, assisted
by Ld. Addl. PP, would argue that the petition is not
maintainable. The grounds of arrest were orally informed to the
revisionists/accused persons and the reason of arrest was also
served to them in writing at the time of their arrest. The circular
no. 2901-3015/Record Branch / PHQ dated Delhi, the,
17.03.2025 of Commissioner of Police was issued after the
arrest of the revisionists in the present FIR and the said circular
directed mandatory communication of grounds of arrest in
writing to the arrested person. However, in the present case,
revisionists / accused persons were arrested prior to issuance of
aforesaid circular dated 17.03.2025 by the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi and therefore, the grounds of arrest were not
communicated in writing and it was communicated to the
revisionists orally at the time of their arrest. There is no illegality
in the orders passed by Ld. JMFC and the present petition may
be dismissed.
5. This Court has considered the submissions and perused
the record. Chargesheet is pending trial before this Court.
Chargesheet is also perused.
6. Vide two separate orders dated 17.03.2025, accused
Shabana and accused Soleman Ali and Noor Mohammad were
remanded to one day police custody. In the impugned order
dated 17.03.2025 whereby revisionist Shabana was remanded to
CR No. 383/2025 Page 4 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 4 of 11 --
police custody, following order was passed by the Ld.
JMFC-02:-
“17.03.2025 At 11:05 a.m
This Court is functioning without Regular Stenographer
since 14.02.2025.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Shabana produced after fresh arrest.
SI Nitin along with PSI Rohini with case file.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Remand Advocate for the accused.
Arrest memo perused as per which accused Soleman
Ali was arrested on 16.03.2025 at 10.40 p.m
. Information of
her arrest has been given to her daughter. Accused has been
arrested after getting the permission of this court vide order
dated 16.03.2025 which was passed at 9:45 p.m.
MLC seen as per which the accused is 36
years old.
No claim of juvenility has been made by the accused. As per
MLC, injury mark has been deputed over the right eyebrow
and over left lower quadrant.
Upon inquiry, the accused submits that she has
sustained the said injury during the quarrel which happened
with the complainant and his family members. She has not
levelled any allegation related to custodial torture.
IO submits that accused has
been arrested in the
present case on the basis of complaint given by the
complainant and she has
been named in the FIR. It is also
submitted that the injured Sabir Ali has succumbed to his
injuries during the treatment and the offence related to
murder will be added in the present case. It is also submitted
that other co-accused persons who are family members of
the accused Shabana are yet to be arrested as they are
currently absconding.
I am satisfied with the grounds of arrest given by the
IO. The same has been informed to the accused.
An application seeking two days PC remand of
accused is filed by IO on the ground that her custodial
interrogation is required to arrest the remaining
co-accused
persons
.
I have heard the submissions made and perused the
material on record including the case diary.
It should be noted that allegations against the
accused are serious in nature. The co-accused persons are
CR No. 383/2025 Page 5 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 5 of 11 --
still absconding and therefore custodial interrogation of the
accused is
required.
In view of the above, accused is
remanded to one day
PC remand. Her custody is handed over to IO .
Accused shall be medically examined after every 24
hours as per rules and shall be produced on 18.03.2025
before concerned Court/l.d. Duty JMFC.
Copy of order be given dasti to IO.”
7. In the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 whereby
revisionists Soleman Ali and Noor Mohammad were remanded
to police custody, following order was passed by the Ld.
JMFC-02:-
“17.03.2025 At 03:30 p.m.
This Court is functioning without Regular Stenographer
since 14.02.2025.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Soleman Ali @ Sulemaan and Noor Mohammad
produced after fresh arrest.
SI Nitin along with SI Praveen on bhalf of IO with case file.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Remand Advocate for the
accused.
Arrest memo perused as per which accused Soleman
Ali was arrested on 16.03.2025 at 09.10 p.m. and the
accused Noor Mohammad was arrested on 17.03.2025 at
12:20 p.m. Information of their arrest has been given to the
family members.
MLC seen as per which accused Soleman Ali is 22
years old and accused Noor Mohammad is 43 years old. No
claim of juvenility has been made by the accused persons.
As per MLC, no fresh external injury is reported.
IO submits that accused persons have been arrested
in the present case on the basis of complaint given by the
complainant and they have been named in the FIR.
I am satisfied with the grounds of arrest given by the
IO. The same has been informed to the accused.
An application seeking two days PC remand of
accused persons is filed by IO on the ground that their
custodial interrogation is required to arrest the co-accused
CR No. 383/2025 Page 6 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 6 of 11 --
Ameer who is currently absconding to recover the weapon
which was used in the commission of offence.
I have heard the submissions made and perused the
material on record including the case diary.
It should be noted that allegations against the
accused persons are serious in nature. The co-accused
Ameer is still absconding and the crime weapon is also yet
to be recovered. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the
accused persons are required.
In view of the above, accused persons are remanded
to one day PC remand. Their custody is handed over to SI
Nitin.
Accused persons shall be medically examined after
every 24 hours as per rules and shall be produced on
18.03.2025 before concerned Court/Ld. Duty JMFC.
Copy of order be given dasti to IO.”
8. The record would show that present revision has been
filed after delay of 36 days. In view of the submissions made
and in the interest of justice, delay in filing of present revision
petition stands condoned. This Court proceeds to dispose of the
present revision petition on merits.
9. The main ground for impugning the aforesaid remand
orders passed by Ld. JMFC-02 is that the grounds of arrest were
not communicated to the revisionists / accused persons in
writing and therefore, the order of one day PC remand of the
revisionists / accused persons is illegal and perverse and the
same deserves to be set aside.
10. In the aforesaid impugned orders, Ld. JMFC-02 has
observed, “
I am satisfied with the grounds of arrest given by the
IO. The same has been informed to the accused.” The order can
CR No. 383/2025 Page 7 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 7 of 11 --
be read in two manners, first that the IO had informed about the
grounds of arrest to the revisionists/accused persons and second
that Ld. JMFC-02 had also informed about grounds of arrest to
the revisionists/accused persons. The only contention of the
counsel for revisionists/accused persons is that the grounds of
arrest was not supplied to the revisionists/accused persons in
writing.
11. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan, Crl.
Appeal Nos. 3528 - 3534 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos.
516 – 522 of 2025) dated 14.08.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was dealing with the petition for cancellation of bail of the
accused. The bail was granted to the accused by Hon’ble High
Court and one of the ground for grant of bail by the Hon’ble
High Court was that the grounds of arrest was not served to the
accused in writing at the time of his arrest. In the said case,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by
itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.
20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents – accused
contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest
were not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating
Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C
(now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita). This submission, however, is devoid of merit.
20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that “no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be
defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly,
Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that “every police officer or
CR No. 383/2025 Page 8 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 8 of 11 --
other person 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.
20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus
mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the
grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a
specific form or insists upon written communication in
every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial
compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless
demonstrable prejudice is shown.
20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was
reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is
made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not
conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when arrest
is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts
to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal
decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not
an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent
judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test
when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere
absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the
arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or
denial of a fair opportunity to defend.
20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the
alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while
overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302
IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter
alia, that there was no mention in the remand orders about
service of memo of grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest
memos were allegedly template-based and not personalised
(para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated that they were
present at the time of arrest or had signed the memos (para
48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India24 and
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it
concluded (paras 43, 49 – 50) that from 03.10.2023
onwards, failure to serve detailed, written, and
individualised grounds of arrest immediately after arrest was
a violation entitling the accused to bail.
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand
records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the
reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from
CR No. 383/2025 Page 9 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 9 of 11 --
the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing
an immediate and informed understanding of the
accusations. No material has been placed on record to
establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged
procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice,
such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot,
by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the
High Court treated it as a determinative factor while
overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC
and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on
Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those
decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory
contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the
settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds
of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody
illegal or entitle the accused to bail.” (Emphasis supplied)
12. In the present case also, merely because the grounds of
arrest was not communicated to the revisionists/accused persons
in writing, the same cannot be a ground to set aside the order of
remand passed by Ld. JMFC-02. In any case, chargesheet has
already been filed in the present matter, which contains all the
material including the grounds of arrest against the
revisionists/accused persons. Delay in informing grounds of
arrest in writing to the revisionists/accused persons cannot be a
ground to hold that the impugned orders of remand dated
17.03.2025 is illegal or perverse. There is no merit in the present
revision petition. The revisionists/accused persons have failed to
show that there is any illegality in the remand orders dated
17.03.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC-02.
CR No. 383/2025 Page 10 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 10 of 11 --
13. In view of the above, the revision petition stands
dismissed and disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to
the counsel for the revisionists.
14. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in the open Court
on 29th August, 2025
(NEHA)
ASJ-06 / New Delhi District
Patiala House Court
CR No. 383/2025 Page 11 of 11
Soleman Ali v. State
-- 11 of 11 --