JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Bhargava, J. - This is an application for bail. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as Learned State Counsel. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that in this case compliance of Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. has not been done in as much as the ground of arrest were not told to the applicant at the time of his arrest by the arresting officer. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that the applicant was arrested and morphine was recovered from his possession and as such he knew that he was arrested on account of the morphine being kept with him. 2. Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. provides that full information shall he furnished to the person who is being arrested of the offence in which he is being detained. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that the ground of arrest shall be told to the person who is being arrested. In the present case the learned Counsel for the State has placed reliance on the case of Pranab Chatterji v. State of Bilrar, 1971 SCC (Crl) 170. In that case the accused was arrested on August 9, 1970 at 10.30 a.m. In that case the facts were that the accused petitioner along with other leaders of the Samyukta Socialist Party was instigating the people who had assembled on the plot in question to plough the land inspite the objection raised by the Halka Karmachari and Management of Indian Iron and Steel Company. He was warned by the Police, who were on the spot, not to do such illegal acts but the petitioner persisted in his acts, obviously on wrong round that he was not doing anything contrary to law. Reliance has been placed by the learned State Counsel on pars 9 of the above case wherein, on the basis of the above facts, it has been held that the Petitioner knew the nature of the alleged offence for which he was arrested. Reliance has been placed by the learned State Counsel on pars 9 of the above case wherein, on the basis of the above facts, it has been held that the Petitioner knew the nature of the alleged offence for which he was arrested. Even in para 10 of the same authority it is further mentioned that the petitioner at the time of his arrest was also informed by the Police Officer who affected the arrest that his arrest was made under Section 151, Cr.P.C. On these facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the circumstances in which the Petitioner was arrested a long with other clearly establish that the petitioner knew the nature of the alleged offence for which he was arrested. Not only this Hon'ble Supreme Court also placed reliance on Annexure I which is the report dated August 7, 1970, submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Dhanabad which was also filed along with affidavit in that case. 3. In the present case General Diary of the Arrest of the applicant has also not been produced in order to show as to whether the grounds of arrest were told to the applicant at the time of his arrest. Moreover in this case arresting officer has not filed affidavit to show that at the time of arrest the details of the grounds of arrest were told to the applicant. An affidavit has been filed by one Shri Mukhram Yadav, Sub-Inspector of police, presently posted at Police Station, Jaidpur, District Barabanki. In para 8 of this Affidavit it is mentioned that after the recoveries made by the Police Party, from possession of the applicant he was arrested by them and the cause of his arrest was told to him and all the ingredients of Section 50 Cr.P.C. were observed by the authorities. This para has been verified on the basis of information derived from the records. Therefore the arrest was not made by the person who has filed this affidavit. 4. It has been consistently held by the Court that when a person is arrested he has to be told the details of the grounds on which he is being arrested. The details should be such that he should know at what time, on what date and place he has committed the offence for which he is being arrested. 4. It has been consistently held by the Court that when a person is arrested he has to be told the details of the grounds on which he is being arrested. The details should be such that he should know at what time, on what date and place he has committed the offence for which he is being arrested. Therefore the State can not say that the grounds of arrest contemplated by Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. were told to the applicant at the time of his arrest. The authority cited by the learned State Counsel does not help him. The authority is entirely on different facts. 5. Thus the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Ramakant Verma, be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Sixth Additional Session Judge, Barabanki.