Amit Giridhar Lalge vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Held

The Court held that the arrest of the petitioner was illegal and a gross violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and before the hearing of his remand application, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, and flowing from Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Praveer Purkayastha, which mandates that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrested person without exception. Consequently, the subsequent remand orders were also declared null and void. The Court directed the release of the petitioner from custody upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, considering that a charge-sheet had already been filed.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Giridhar Lalge, a Sales Tax Officer, was arrested on June 25, 2024, from his workplace. He contends that he was not served with any written or oral grounds of arrest, nor was an arrest memo provided. He was produced before the Additional Sessions Judge, who remanded him to police custody, and subsequently to judicial custody. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, during his tenure from August 2021 to March 2022, sanctioned ineligible GST refunds amounting to Rs. 175 crores to sixteen taxpayers, failing to visit their places of business and not following proper procedures. The petitioner claims to have cooperated with the investigation, visiting the ACB office over 20 times since February 28, 2024, the date of the FIR.

Key Issues

1. Whether the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and in gross violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023), due to the non-communication of grounds of arrest. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that his arrest is bad in law and a nullity because he was not provided with the grounds of arrest in writing or orally, nor was an arrest memo served, violating Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. He relies on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Praveer Purkayastha and other cases emphasizing the mandatory nature of communicating grounds of arrest. He contends that subsequent remand orders cannot validate an illegal initial arrest. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondent State regarding the grounds of arrest. It notes that the remand application mentioned the petitioner sanctioned refunds without following due procedure and that his involvement was disclosed during the investigation, adhering to Supreme Court guidelines.