The Delhi High Court ruled that the arrest of Marfing Tamang was illegal due to delayed disclosure of grounds, violating Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1).
Background of the case
This case revolves around the arrest of Marfing Tamang under FIR No. 157/2024, registered at P.S. Kamla Market, Delhi, under several provisions of the IPC and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The petitioner was accused of managing an establishment involved in sexual exploitation and benefiting financially from such activities. The police alleged that the establishment functioned as part of a larger network engaging in trafficking and forced prostitution.
On May 17, 2024, the petitioner was detained and subsequently arrested at 6:30 p.m. He was initially placed in police custody for two days before being remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. The core contention in the case was whether the procedural safeguards under Section 50 CrPC were adhered to. Specifically, the issue was that the grounds of arrest were not communicated at the time of the arrest but instead were served later, after the remand application had been filed. The petitioner argued that this violated his fundamental rights and due process under the law, making the arrest illegal. The court was called upon to determine whether this procedural lapse warranted the quashing of the arrest and remand orders.
Issues
- Whether the phrase “forthwith”under section 50 CrPC mandates immediate communication of grounds of arrest.
- Whether the delay in serving the grounds of arrest invalidates police custody and judicial remand.
- Whether discrepancies in the grounds of arrest mentioned in the remand application and those later served affect the legality of the arrest.
Court’s observations
- The court distinguished between “forthwith”in section 50 CrPC and “as soon as may be”under PMLA. It held that “forthwith” means immediate and simultaneous communication of arrest grounds at the time of issuing the arrest memo.
“..the word ―forthwith‖ appearing in section 50 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted strictly, meaning thereby that the grounds of arrest or the grounds for arrest must be communicated to an arrestee immediately and without delay.” (Para 30.6)
- The court held that the failure to inform the petitioner of the grounds for arrest at the time of his detention amounted to a direct violation of his constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and procedural safeguards under Section 50 CrPC.
“Accordingly, in the opinion of this court, the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandate of section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.” (Para 32)
- The court emphasised that the grounds of arrest must not only be communicated in writing but must be done in a timely manner that allows the accused to prepare for legal representation.
“Once the grounds for requiring a person’s arrest have been formulated in the investigating officer‟smind, there can possibly be no reason why those grounds cannot be reduced into writing and communicated to the person simultaneously at the time of arrest.” (Para 30.8)
- The court reiterated that the Magistrate erred in ruling that serving the grounds of arrest just before the remand hearing was sufficient compliance, as meaningful legal representation requires adequate notice.
“This was clearly an erroneous interpretation and application of the law by the learned Magistrate, since furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing just about an hour before the remand hearing in the present case, 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.” (Para 34)
- The remand order dated May 18, 2024 was set aside as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 CrPC, rendering the petitioner’s continued detention unlawful.
“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.” (Para 36)
Accordingly, remand order dated 18.05.2024 also stands vitiated and is set-aside. (Para 37)
- The court reaffirmed the significance of procedural compliance in arrests, underscoring that any deviation from statutory mandates weakens due process and constitutional protections.
“In light of the above, without addressing the controversy as to whether the petitioner stood deprived of his liberty once he reached the police station at 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024, there can be no contest that the petitioner was formally arrested when the arrest memo was issued to him i.e., at 06:30 p.m. on 17.05.2024. In compliance of section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as interpreted above, the I.O. was required to serve the grounds of arrest upon the petitioner simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest memo. This was admittedly not done.” (Para 31)
How this judgment can be applied for the advancement of human rights
This judgment establishes a strong precedent for safeguarding human rights, particularly in the realm of criminal justice and due process. By mandating immediate communication of the grounds of arrest, it ensures that accused individuals are not deprived of their fundamental rights arbitrarily. This ruling upholds the principle that legal processes must be transparent, ensuring that law enforcement agencies strictly adhere to procedural requirements.
Additionally, this case reinforces the necessity of allowing accused persons adequate time to prepare their legal defence. Ensuring that legal representation is meaningful rather than a mere formality is crucial for upholding the right to a fair trial. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and procedural mandates under Section 50 CrPC, making it clear that any deviation from these principles weakens the integrity of the justice system.
Beyond individual rights, this ruling has broader implications for the protection of vulnerable communities. It prevents law enforcement from abusing detention powers and sets a precedent for judicial intervention when fundamental rights are violated. This judgment can serve as a tool for human rights advocates to challenge unlawful detentions and ensure accountability in law enforcement practices.
By reinforcing procedural compliance and transparency, the ruling contributes to the larger framework of human rights jurisprudence, emphasising that the rule of law must prevail over arbitrary actions by the state. It strengthens the principle that liberty is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed without adhering to established legal norms, thereby protecting individuals from unjust state actions.
The judgment in the case of Marfing Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi) delivered by Anup Jairam Bhambhani J, Delhi high court on 4th Feb 2025 may be read here:
(The Legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this judgement primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)
Related: