Grounds of Arrest in Punjabi do not mean violation of Article 22 of Constitution: PHHC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has established that mere signature of an arrestee on a Punjabi-language document does not inherently prove a violation of constitutional rights if no objection was raised at the time of detention.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson heard the petition challenging the legality of an arrest in a commercial dispute involving the alleged fraudulent supply of almond kernels. The Bench examined whether the police complied with the mandatory safeguards under the Constitution of India, 1950 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Key Takeaways

Distinction Between Power and Justification

Judicial scrutiny emphasizes that the existence of a legal power to arrest is distinct from the necessity of its exercise in a specific case.

Communication vs. Delivery

For the purposes of Article 22(1), 'communication' requires that the arrestee understands the grounds, not merely that they received a written document.

Weight of Contemporaneous Record

Absence of protest regarding the language of the arrest memo at the time of production before a Magistrate acts as a significant barrier to later claims of unconstitutional detention.

Remand vs. Validity

While a remand order cannot validate an unconstitutional arrest, a lawful arrest provides a valid foundation for subsequent judicial custody.

Section 35 of BNSS

The Punjab and Haryana High Court analyzed the necessity of the arrest under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting that while the petitioner had participated in the pre-FIR inquiry, the investigating officer had recorded specific reasons for the arrest in a checklist. The Bench observed that prior cooperation does not grant permanent immunity if the statutory requirements for custody are later met during the investigation.

Regarding the communication of grounds, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that “...communication of the grounds of arrest cannot be confined to mere furnishing of a written document. The grounds must be conveyed in a manner and language understood by the person arrested so as to make him or her aware of the basis of the arrest. ... In the present case, the written grounds were furnished to the petitioner and acknowledged by her, while the record does not disclose any assertion stating that she was unable to understand the language in which they were communicated.”

Ratio

Compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) to communicate the grounds of arrest is a substantive guarantee; however, where an arrestee acknowledges receipt of written grounds without raising a contemporaneous objection regarding the language used, the arrest is not rendered unconstitutional solely on the basis of a subsequent plea of lack of understanding.

Background

The dispute originated from a transaction where the complainant alleged that the petitioner, a Director of Vantara Agro Commodities Private Limited, induced the supply of 4,000 kg of almond kernels valued at over ₹37 lakh, leading to a dishonoured cheque. The petitioner contended the dispute was purely civil, relating to the quality of goods, and noted that a civil suit had been filed prior to the FIR.

The petitioner argued that her arrest in Meerut was illegal because the grounds were served in Punjabi, a language she allegedly did not understand, and her relatives were not informed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on precedents like Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ( "(2014) 8 SCC 273": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 560) to distinguish the 'power to arrest' from the 'justification for arrest'. It also referenced Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana ( "2025 INSC 162 : (2025) 5 SCC 799": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 206) and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India ( "(1981) 2 SCC 427": 1980 CaseBase(SC) 23) regarding the necessity of effective communication. However, finding that the police had informed the petitioner's father and that the Judicial Magistrate had applied his mind while granting remand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the challenge.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-50887 of 2026 (O&M)
Case Title: Vandana Dhiman v. State of Punjab and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gautam Dutt, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nitesh Sharma, AAG., Punjab; Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 29091