over a matchbox, and the petitioner poured petrol into a glass, sprinkled it on the victim, and set him ablaze. Subsequently, FIR No. 241/2024 was registered on 26.08.2024. On the same day, the petitioner was arrested during the investigation. Four days later, the victim died during treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner’s arrest on 26.08.2024 was illegal as the grounds of arrest were never communicated to him, his relatives, or the Magistrate, contrary to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, Section 50 Cr.P.C. (Sec. 47 BNSS), and the binding law laid down in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) . The Magistrate granted police custody remand without examining compliance with constitutional safeguards or asking the police about the grounds of arrest, thereby violating the petitioner’s rights under Articles 21 and 22. At no stage were the grounds of arrest furnished in writing to the petitioner or his family, nor reflected in contemporaneous records like the remand application, arrest memo, charge sheet, or witnesses’ statements, and the arrest memo contained only formal details, not the legal grounds of arrest, as clarified by the Supreme Court. The Investigating Officer subsequently interpolated the case diary with false entries claiming grounds of arrest were served, amounting to perjury and misrepresentation before the Court. Despite repeated pleas, the Magistrate and Trial Court ignored the petitioner’s objections and the binding Supreme Court precedents, and mechanically remanded him to judicial custody. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.08.2024 without being informed of the grounds of arrest, making his continued detention unconstitutional, illegal, and void. The petitioner prays for immediate release from custody, as his arrest and detention stand vitiated in law.
