A Gangster's Bail Granted: Police Failed to Communicate Arrest Reasons
Court in Delhi permits release of criminal under absence of justified detainment reasons
Capital City: In a historic move, a Delhi court has granted bail to a notorious criminal, slamming the authorities for infringing on his constitutional rights.
The court harshly criticised the police for their failure to reveal the reasons behind the arrest of Ata Ur Rehman - an accused in the gruesome murder of his rival gangster, Prince Tewatia, within Tihar Jail.
"Quite frankly, the constitutional promise has been trampled upon - demanding the release of the applicant, returning his freedom..." said judge Sumit Dass of the Patiala House courts.
The verdict was handed down on April 15 but was uploaded recently.
The court voiced its displeasure over an order issued by the magistrate at Tis Hazari, which neglected to record the content from the arrest memo during the remand hearing. According to the court, this crucial stage was crucial to understand whether the reasons for arrest had been explained properly.
Rehman's attorney argued that one of the chief reasons for seeking bail was the accused's lack of knowledge about the reasons for his detention by both the police and prison officials.
Judge Dass pointed out that the investigating officer (IO) of the case did not submit the arrest memo to the magistrate during the police custody remand hearing, and the magistrate failed to specify if the reasons for arrest were adequately disseminated.
The court asserted, "I cannot help but convince myself that there was no compliance with the communication of the grounds of arrest...in every aspect of the application seeking formal arrest and police custody, there is nothing that can offer comfort that the constitutional mandate stipulated in CrPC has been abided by."
The court noted that it was all the more shocking that the investigating agency and the magistrate made no effort whatsoever to comply with the law or meet the necessary legal requirements, such as mentioning the reasons for arrest or including a discussion of them in the order.
Judge Dass further stated that the magistrate and the accused counsel had blatantly disregarded the rule of law in passing their order, and the counsel had not performed their legal duty in a significant manner.
Rehman was granted bail on the condition that he submit a personal bond of ₹50,000.
According to the police, Rehman leads a criminal gang primarily based in South Delhi, and he is accused of involvement in multiple murder cases, including the 2018 killing of a BJP councillor's brother. He was apprehended by the Delhi Police Special Cell in 2021 after being injured during a police encounter. Tewatia was one of Rehman's most formidable adversaries, as his gang also exerted considerable influence in South Delhi.
A violent confrontation between rival gang members occurred inside Jail No. 3 of Tihar Prison on April 2023, which led to Tewatia's murder with a sharp weapon. Rehman is one of the primary suspects in the case.
Charges have been brought against him and his co-accused inmates, and the case is currently being tried.
INSIGHTS:
- The Indian Constitution's Article 22(1) mandates that any arrested person must be informed of the reasons for their arrest.
- The CrPC requires police to provide “full particulars” of the offence immediately upon arrest and provide written grounds if demanded by the arrested person.
- Delayed or vague disclosure can lead to adverse inferences during bail hearings, potentially strengthening the accused's case for release.
A Dig into Precedents: Critical Cases and Notable Principles
| Case/Law | Principle ||------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|| Article 22(1) | Demands immediate disclosure of grounds for arrest || Section 50 CrPC | Requires both written charges and bail eligibility to be presented || Vikas Chawla (2025) | Arrest grounds must be stated in the arrest memo at the time of arrest, not later || Joginder Kumar v. State (1994) | Demands justification for arrests and notification to a relative or friend |
- In the court case of Vikas Chawla (2025), it was ruled that the arrest grounds must be stated in the arrest memo at the time of arrest, not later, as per the Indian Constitution's Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC.
- The Joginder Kumar v. State (1994) case mandates that there should be justification for arrests and notification to a relative or friend, ensuring adherence to Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Section 50 CrPC.
- Past judgments have shown that delayed or vague disclosure during arrest can lead to more favorable inferences for the accused during bail hearings, as demonstrated in various general-news, crime-and-justice, and politics scenarios in India.
- Furthermore, it is essential for authorities in India to ascertain and properly communicate the reasons for arrest to the arrested person, as highlighted by the Indian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- Delaying the communication of the reasons for arrest can paint a grim picture not only in Delhi but across India, as is evident from the recent court case A Gangster's Bail Granted: Police Failed to Communicate Arrest Reasons, which took place in the capital city of India.
