The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) that police officials not disclosing the grounds of arrest to the accused in the prescribed document while making the arrest should be dealt strictly and shall face a departmental inquiry after suspension to stop them indulging in such “illegality”.
The division bench of Justices Jai Krishna Upadhyay and Siddharth said in the order that the DGP had issued a circular on July 25 last year in the matter along with a “memo” that has to be filled during arrest.
The bench observed.. “his own Subordinate Officer of Police is not complying the same and therefore the purpose of new arrest memo having been made and circulated to all the police officers of the State has been frustrated”.
The directive was issued while hearing a habeas corpus writ petition for issuing a writ order or direction to the Gautam Buddha Nagar police to produce and release the petitioner, Umang Rastogi, from “illegal custody”, while declaring his “arrest, detention and remand as illegal, null and void”.
The petitioner also prayed for issuing a writ order quashing the remand order passed by Civil Judge (SD) FTC/ACJM, Gautam Buddha Nagar.
According to the petitioner, his father, a permanent resident of Haldwani, Uttrakhand, was “abducted” by the Bisrakh police station (Gautam Buddha Nagar) station house officer (SHO) from their business premises at Laxmi Nagar in Delhi and was kept in illegal custody for 5 days.
During his illegal detention, evidence was fabricated and an FIR was registered against his father under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on December 3, 2025, it was alleged.
Story continues below this ad
After the petitioner’s father filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, the police on December 26, 2025, arrested Umang Rastogi from Haldwani without disclosing to him the ground of his arrest, it was further claimed.
Umang Rastogi was produced in the Gautam Buddha Nagar district court the next day
seeking his remand but was not given a copy of the arrest memo, he said.
His counsel moved an application in the local court seeking his release, but it was rejected. Then they approached the High Court challenging the remand order dated December 27.
Story continues below this ad
Justifying Umang Rastogi’s arrest, the additional advocate general argued that the petitioner had a “criminal history” with six cases and he did not deserve any leniency from the court.
The division bench, however, said, “After considering the pleadings of the parties and the rival submissions, we find that the crux of the dispute between the parties is that the petitioner was arrested without disclosure of grounds of arrest in the arrest memo brought on record and it was also not supplied to him though his signature was taken thereon.”
“The grounds of arrest must be informed to every person arrested. The ground of arrest should be furnished to the arrestee in writing. Breach of any such requirements will render the arrest of arrestee illegal,” the court added.
“Earlier there was no definite pro forma of memorandum of arrest in the state of Uttar Pradesh and the investigating officer used to make his own memo of arrest and arrest of accused was made on its basis. Finding total anarchy in this regard, this court passed number of orders and thereafter the DGP office UP, got a proforma of arrest memo prepared and the same was directed to be circulated to all the Police Commissioners, SSPs/SPs, AIGs, zonal AIGs, DIGs were informed about the new arrest memo by the circular of the DGP issues on July 25, 2025,” the bench stated.
Story continues below this ad
It further said, “The direction of the Director General of Police clearly amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the police personnel investigating this case. The empty compliance of law and justification of the same before the court, as in this case by the respondents, deserves to be discouraged.”
It said, “In the instant matter, admittedly, no such effort had been made by the learned Magistrate to ensure adequate legal aid to the accused petitioner and appropriate opportunity of hearing at the time of judicial remand. Even the arrest memo does not contain any column regarding grounds of arrest of the petitioner.”
It further observed, “No details of the material collected by the investigating officer, till the time of arrest of petitioner, which necessitated his arrest was disclosed. Details of other material collected, documentary or electronic, relating to person arrested was also not disclosed. Even the details of sections of B.N.S.S and other laws, their supporting material and evidence collected against the arrested accused were not disclosed in the arrest memo. Therefore, it is clear that the arrest of the petitioner was absolutely illegal. The purpose of preparing the arrest memo was frustrated by the Sub-Inspector of Police.”
The court ordered, “In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 is hereby set aside. The arrest of the petitioner is also quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty, unless required in connection with any other case.”
Story continues below this ad
The bench directed that the “order be communicated to Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh through Registrar General of this Court and accordingly, a circular be issued to all the Commissioners of Police / SSPs/ SPs for necessary compliance in the light of the observations made”.
