Zunaid Saifi vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his arrest and subsequent remand in judicial custody, which according to him was done in violation of his rights protected by Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is stated to have been arrested on 12.06.2026 and remanded to custody on the same day till 19.06.2026, which according to him was done in a mechanical and routine manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the FIR, in which he has been arrested, was registered on 31.03.2021 at P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffarnagar bearing FIR/Case Crime No.77 of 2021 for offences under Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, based upon a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax Department, Muzaffarnagar. The allegations in the FIR were wrong availment of input tax credit, fake billing, issuance of invoices; thereby causing a loss of revenue to the Government. It is also undisputed by the State that from the year 2021 till his arrest on 12.06.2026, the petitioner was a free man. In other words, he was never arrested during the course of investigation for five years.

The challenge to the arrest is given on a short point that the grounds of arrest were not disclosed to the petitioner on 12.06.2026 when he was taken into custody. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police E.O.W., Meerut Sector, Meerut, Mr. Jitendra Singh Kalra, in which a copy of the arrest memo is annexed at page 11 and 12. In the grounds of arrest, it is simply mentioned that the petitioner has committed cognizable non-bailable offences, the details of which are there in the case diary and that there is no seizure from the petitioner and that all the incriminating documents against him are in the case diary. It is also given in the grounds of arrest that there are no electronic evidences in the form of electronic data against the petitioner and thereafter, the various sections of the law under which he has been arrested is given.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not a case where the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned and he too has referred to the same paragraphs referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in a different context. Learned counsel for the State submits that the details given in the grounds of arrest clearly goes to disclose that the material against the petitioner are all there in the case diary, to which he would have access to when the charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial court on 03.09.2026. 5. Heard Shri Nishant Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record of the case.

The factual aspects fall within a very narrow compass and that is, whether the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the petitioner. In this regard, having gone through the grounds of arrest, where the E.O.W. has only stated that the material available against the petitioner is available in the case diary but however, the case diary is not a document to which in a criminal case has access to.

There is a specific bar under old Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code [Section 192(5) B.N.S.S.], whereby a case diary is a privileged document which could be perused only by the Court and by the accused in the exceptional circumstances where any part of the case diary is used by the Investigating Officer to refresh his memory in the course of testifying before the trial court, where that portion which was used by the Investigating Officer to refresh his memory, the accused has the right of access to that part alone. However, in this particular case, as it is admitted by the State itself that the charge-sheet was filed on 03.09.2026, there was no question of the petitioner coming to know about the grounds on which he has been proceeded against and arraigned as an accused before the learned trial court. It is necessary to appreciate here that the grounds of arrest which is given at the very inception of the arrest itself is to facilitate the accused in filing of a bail application whereby he can place before the Court those facts which are revealed in the grounds of arrest as the prima-facie charge against him. Non-disclosure of the same, impedes the right of the accused person in filing even an appropriate bail application.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the arrest memo is grossly deficient in material particulars relating to the grounds on which the petitioner was arrested on 12.06.2026. Subsequent, remand of the petitioner by the learned Magistrate would not go to correct the principal infirmity which exists from the very inception of his arrest itself. We would also like to record here that the remand Magistrate ought to have seen the grounds of arrest given in the arrest memo and scrutinized the same more carefully in order to ascertain whether the same satisfied the requirement of law, but the same does not appear to have been done so diligently.

Therefore, the petition is allowed. The arrest of the petitioner is set aside. He shall be set forth at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.

The petition stands disposed of.

This order is without prejudice to the rights and authority of the State-respondent to act in accordance with law.