K. C. BHARGAVA, J. This bail application has been moved by one Vikram who has been an accused in offences punishable under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. Police Station. Ghazipur District Lucknow. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case provisions of Section 50 (1) of Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India have not been followed inas much as the grounds and the full particulars of the offences were not disclosed to him at the time of his arrest. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate the particulars of offences were indicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest which fact is corroborated by entry in the general diary and in the affidavit of the arresting officer. A perusal of file will go to show that accused Vikram was arrested on 4-5-1993. Annexuie-1 to the bail application is the F. I. R. which has been lodged against the applicant. Annexure-2 is the copy of recovery memo. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 3-5- 1993 and a report of that inci dent was lodged on the same day at about 10. 30 a. m. A perusal of Annexure-2 recovery memo, goes to show that Vikram was arrested on 4-5-1993 at about 9. 00 p. m. He admitted to have committed the crime and on the pointing out of Vikram, one knife was recovered and statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. was also recorded. In the present case the accused has also tiled an affidavit stating therein that he has not committed any offence and he was arrested by the police from his house and he was not disclosed any ground on which be was being arrested. He has further stated that no knife was recovered on his pointing out. As against this Sri A. N. Shukla who is arresting officer also filed an affidavit stating therein that the accused was arrested as he was wanted in crime No. 262/93 under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. and he had committed the murder of deceased Iqbal. The accused was told the reasons of his arrest at the time of his arrest. As against this Sri A. N. Shukla who is arresting officer also filed an affidavit stating therein that the accused was arrested as he was wanted in crime No. 262/93 under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. and he had committed the murder of deceased Iqbal. The accused was told the reasons of his arrest at the time of his arrest. He also, on being questioned, became ready to get the knife recovered. The knife was got recovered and recovery memo was prepared on the spot and a copy of the same was given to the accused whose signatures were also obtained on the memo. A copy of Fard Baramdgi is also attached to the counter-affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate have placed reliance on certain case law decided by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. , 1987 L. L. J. 273. In that case the petitioner was arrested and his licensed gun was seized by the police. A recovery memo was also prepared at the spot. A ground was taken that on arrest the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India or of full particulars of the offence as required by Sec tion 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A counter-affidavit was also filed by the Station Officer of P. S. Bisawan Distt. Sitapur. In the general diary it was stated that the ground of the arrest was stated. It was stated that "giraftaari ka karan bataya gaya" In this case a reference was also made of the case of Subhash Bhandhari v. State of U. P. , 1986 LLJ 271, wherein an affidavit of Sub-Inspector Gajendra Pal Singh was filed before the Sessions Judge stating that the accused committed the murder of the uncle of Raj Kumar resident of village Bargawan on 9-6-1986 at 7. 00 a. m. before the shop of Katori by firing at him and, therefore, he was arrested after commit ting the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. On the basis of these facts the Court observed as under: "we do not find it possible to accept this statement made in the affidavit of S. L Gajendra Pal Singh having regard to the fact no such particulars are mentioned in the recoveiy memo, Annexure C-A-2, counter-affidavit and indeed no mention what so ever has been made in the General Diary entry, Annexure C-A-I. Perhaps it is an after thought of S. I. Gajendra Pal Singh and we cannot proceed on this statement. The case must proceed on the basis that the petitioner had not been informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of his arrest in the sense which we have indicat ed above. " 4. The next in the series is Ram Chandra alias Munai v. Superintendent Central Jail, Naini and others, 1982 LLJ 160. This case has also been decided by a Division Bench of this Court. In that case the same grounds were taken. In that case it was stated that the Sub-Inspector who arrested the accused did not inform him the grounds of arrest. A counter-affidavit was filed by one Ram Autar Sharma, Incharge of Police Station, Handia, in which it was mentioned that on being arrested the petitioner was immediately informed about the grounds for his detention and this fact was clear from the entry made in the general diary. The averments were sworn on the bas is of perusal of record and not personal knowledge. The G. D. which was placed before the court it did not contain any entry that Sub-Inspector who arrested the petitioner had forthwith communicated to him either the parti culars of the offence for which he was being detained or the ground thereof. Therefore the court accepted the contention of the petitioner that the Sub-Inspector who arrested him did not communicate to him the grounds of his detention. 5. The next case is Hazari Lal v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 LLJ 230 ). This case has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in which the plea was taken that the detention of the petitioner was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 50 (1), Cr. 5. The next case is Hazari Lal v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 LLJ 230 ). This case has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in which the plea was taken that the detention of the petitioner was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. In that case reliance was also placed on the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. , (supra ). In that case considering the facts of the case the Court held that the illegality which had been committed by the arresting officer cannot be cured. In that case one Vijay Bahadur Singh also filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties. Even the allegations which were mentioned in the counter affidavit about the disclosure of the full particulars of the offence were not relied upon by the Court. It was observed that it cannot be said even on the basis of this counter-affidavit that the grounds/reasons were disclosed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest in conformity with the regulations of law. Thus from this case it comes out that even if an affidavit has been filed by the arresting officer stating therein that he had disclosed full grounds of arrest to the accused, even then it is not sufficient unless the same is also mentioned in detail in General diary. 6. The next case is Shanna alias Lulla v. State of U. P. and others, 1986 LLJ 209. In that case also the plea was taken that the compliance 01 Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. has not been done. In that case a counter- affidavit was filed by Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Wazirganj, Lucknow stating therein that at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 31-8-1986 at 10. 30 a. m. for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act the petitioner was found to have possessed an illicit knife. There was a specific averment of the petitioner that he had not been informed the details of oilence in which he was arrested. 30 a. m. for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act the petitioner was found to have possessed an illicit knife. There was a specific averment of the petitioner that he had not been informed the details of oilence in which he was arrested. After considering the relevant law on the point the Division Bench of this Court held as under: "section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that every police officer arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. The duty is cast upon the arresting officer to communicate the full parti culars of the offence to the person arrested; it is not for the person arrested merely to draw his own inferences. Moreover every knife is not as illicit knife; and is cannot be safely said that because a knife was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, he should have known that his possession thereof was illegal. In this situation, the detention of the petitioner is illegal and the petition must succeed. " 7. The recovery of the knife from the possession of the accused was also held not sufficient to draw inference that the petitioner was told the grounds of his arrest. 8. The next case in the series is Subhash Bhandari v. State of U. P. and others, 1986 LLJ 271. In that case also the detention of the petitioner was challenged on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement of Article 22 (1) and Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. In that case it was recorded in the G. D. report made by one Chotelal Tewari, S. I. of Police P. S. , Hazratganj, Lucknow that both the petitioners were informed of the offence which had been registered against them and of the grounds of arrest at the spot. Chotelal Tewari S. I. had also filed an affidavit in that case stating therein that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the petitioners but this averment was not sworn as true to his personal knowledge but on the basis of information received from the record. Thereafter another affidavit was filed by Chotelal Tewari which was also verified on the basis of record. Thereafter another affidavit was filed by Chotelal Tewari which was also verified on the basis of record. A reference was also made to the case of Ram Chandra alias Munai v. Suprintendent Central Jail, Naini and others (supra ). It was contended in that case that the counter-affidavit and the General diary should indicate the name of the first informant, date, time and place of the offence, and the offence allegedly com mitted by the petitioners. After considering the contention of the learned Counsel for the parties and the facts on record the Division Bench of this Court opined that there is a substance in the contention of the petitioner. Reliance was also placed in the case of Vimal Kishore v. State of U. P. , AIR 1956 All 56 . It was held in the case that it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence, but the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. It was observed that the ground to be communicated to the arrested person should be some what similar to the charge framed by the court for the trial of the case. It was held that Section 50 (1) requires "full particulars" of the offence or other grounds for his arrest. In a way these expressions carry the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution a little further as a limb of "procedure established by law". In that case the G. D. entry recorded that the petitioners were informed about the crime registered against them and the ground of arrest were also told to them. This entry obviously lacked the statement that the petitioners were informed of the "full particular" of the offence with normally includes the name of the complainant and the date, time and place of the alleged offence. It was also held that once the arresting officer swears the affidavit he can very well state in explicit terms as to what the petitioners were informed and whether full particulars of the offence against them were told to them or not. On the consideration of the entry, affidavit on record the court held that the provisions of Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. were not complied with. 9. On the consideration of the entry, affidavit on record the court held that the provisions of Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. were not complied with. 9. Learned Counself or the State has placed reliance on the case of Ram Chandra Srivastava v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, 1992 L Crr 30 : 1992 JIC (All) (LB) 786. A Division Bench of this Court on the basis of the entries in the G. D. and the affidavit of the arresting officer held that the compliance of Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. has been done by the police. In that case reference has also been made to a number of cases cited above but those cases have not been considered in detail. In this case it has not been stated that in the G. D. whether there was a detailed mention of the particulars of offence which were told to the arrested persons or not. The Court has merely stated that accused had not filed any affidavit while the arresting officer had filed the affidavit and the averments in the counter-affidabit of the arresting officer had to be believed and the entry had already been made in the G. D. but the nature of entry which was made in the G. D. had not been considered in this particular case. Therefore, this case will not give any help to the State because in earlier cases mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment it has been specifically held by the Division Bench that in the G. D entries full details should have been mentioned and merely mentioning that "giraftaari ka karan bataya gaya" is not sufficient and it does not satisfy the provisions of Art. 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50 (1) of the Cr. P. C. This fact is specially mentioned in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). This case has not been discussed in detail in the above case. Therefore, this case provides no help to the State. 10. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the State is Rama Kant v. State of U. P. and another, 1983 LLJ 118 . This case has not been discussed in detail in the above case. Therefore, this case provides no help to the State. 10. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the State is Rama Kant v. State of U. P. and another, 1983 LLJ 118 . In that case the same question arose and the Investigation officer P. N. Singh filed a counter-affidavit that he had informed the petitioner of the grounds of arrest and had also communicated the full particulars of the offence. He also filed copy of the G. D. and the recovery memo. A rejoinder-affidavit in rebuttal was filed by the petitioner himself. In that case in the General Diary the entry was "naqal fard mulzim ko di gayee" which means that a copy of the reco very memo was handed over to the accused at that time. It was also alleged that the recovery memo was prepared on the spot and every word of the incident was narrated in the recovery memo including the fact that illicit arms were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that he was being taken into custody for committing those offences. On the basis of these facts it was held by the Court that as the whole incident was narrated in the memo by the arresting officer and a copy of the same was given to the accused also therefore the accused knew that in which case and crime under he was being arrested because the full details of the offence were mentioned in the recovery memo. This case does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case in the recovery memo it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been arrested alongwith another person near Government Girls High School, Indira Nagar and they confessed to the crime and on the pointing out of the accused a knife was recovered. In this recovery memo the details of the offence have not been mentioned. It has not been mentioned in it as to on which date the offence was committed and what was the time and who was murdered and other details were also not given, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant Vikram had come to know the offence in which he was being arrested. Therefore, these facts are entirely different from the case law cited above. 11. Therefore, these facts are entirely different from the case law cited above. 11. In the case of Rama Kant v. State of U. P. and another (supra), mere recovery of knife cannot be said to saddle the petitioner with the knowledge of the offence in which he was arrested. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment in the case of Shanna alias Lulla v. Stale of U. P. and another (supra) a Division Bench of this Court did not place reliance on the evidence of the prosecution that a knife was recovered from the possession of an accused. Thus, it goes to show that the recovery of the knife from the posses sion of a person will not be sufficient to infer that the arrested person was told the grounds of his arrest. Thus we find that there is a conflict between the Division Benches of this Court on the question as to whether more entry that "giraftari ka kaaran Bataya Gaya" accompanied by an affidavit of Sub-Inspector of Police giving full details of the offence and that he had told to the accused at the time of his arrest the reasons of his arrest and the full particulars of the offence is sufficient compliance of Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. the Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India or whether full particulars of the offence as set out in charge should also be mentioned in the G. D. 12. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. (supra) has held that mere affidavit of the arresting officer giving details of the offence which were told to the arrested person at the time of his arrest is not sufficient unless the same is corroborated by the similar entry in the General Diary. Similarly in the case of Subhas Bhandari v. Stale of U. P. and others (supra), it was held that unless the statement of the arresting officer on affidavit mentioning therein that full particulars of the offence were told to the arrested person is not supported by the similar entry in the G. D. will not be sufficient to rely on the affidavit of the arresting officer. Thus, we find that these two cases are clear on the point that the statement of the arresting officer on affidavit before the Court that he told the full particulars of the offence including the date, time and place of the occurrence alongwith offence which was committed by the accused is not sufficient unless the same is corroborated by the similar entry in the G. D. But in the later decision namely in Ram Chandra Srivastava v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court merely on the statement of the arresting officer in which it was disclosed that the details of the offence which were mentioned in the affidavit were told to the accused persons, the habeas corpus petitions of the accused were dismissed. The nature of the entry in the G. D. was not considered in that case and the same was also not quoted in the judgment. In this case the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. (supra) and Hazari Lal v. State of U. P. and others, were referred to. The case of Rama Kant v. State of U. P. and another (supra) also run contrary to the above noted cases. The case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. (supra) has been referred to and not discussed in detail. The case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U, P. (supra) was merely referred to and not discussed in detail. In the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. (supra), it was specifically held by the Division Bench that mere statement on affidavit of the Sub-Inspector of Police having regard to the fact that no details of particulars were mentioned in the recovery memo or the G. D. cannot be relied upon and can be said to bs an after- thought These specific findings were not considered in the case of Rama Kant v. State of U. P. and another (supra ). Therefore, at present the position is that there is conflict between the Division Bench judgments in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. (supra) and Subhash Bhandari v. State of U. P. and others (supra) on the one hand and the cases of Rama Kant v. State of U. P. and another (supra) and Ram Chandra Srivastava v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and others (supra) on the other. 13. In order to resolve these conflicts between these Division Bench cases and in order to settle the controversy once for all and to lay down a clear law which may settle the present controversy it is necessary that the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench, therefore, this Court proposes to refer this matter to the Larger Bench. 14. It may be mentioned here that unless the entry in the General Diary mentions full particulars of offence how the arresting officer can at a later stage say in affidavit that full particulars of offence as set out in charge were told to the accused. The arresting officer cannot be presumed to remember such details in all cases. He has to refresh his memory from the entry in the General Diary and it is on this ground that in earlier cases, it was insisted that full particulars should be mentioned in the General Diary. Unless the entry in the General Diary mentions full particulars of the offence which are required for the charge how an arresting officer can at a later stage say in counter-affidavit that full particulars of the offences, as set out in the charge, were told to the accused. Thus on this principle in the earlier set of cases referred to above it was stated that full particulars of the offence should be mentioned in the General Diary or the recovery memo, as the case may be. 15. There is also a conflict between these two sets of Division Bench cases on the point as to whether the petitioner is also required to file affidavit with regard to the manner in which he was arrested and whether the details and full particulars of the offence, as set out in the charge, were told to him by the arresting officer or not. This conflict is also to be set at rest. This conflict is also to be set at rest. It may be said here that the grounds of arrest which are to be communicated to the arrested person by the arresting officer is a fundamental right under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and it cannot be taken away by the arresting officer merely by saying that reasons of arrest have been told to the accused without mentioning in detail the particulars of the same in the General Diary. This right has also been further recognised in Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. which says that full particulars of the offence have to be told to the arrested person. The State has to prove that it has complied with the provisions of law. In the opinion of this Court it is not necessary for the arrested person to file an affidavit as to whether the details of offence and the grounds of arrest were told to him by the arresting officer or not. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove independently through the affidavit and the General Diary entry that details of the offence and grounds of arrest as required by Section 50 (1), Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India have been told to the arrested person or not. Therefore this conflict has also to be set at rest so that in future there may be a guidance for the subordinate courts and for the police in general as to what procedure they have to adopt when a person is arrested by them, and bail is applied for before subordinate courts. 16. The following questions are referred for decision of a Larger Bench:- (i) Whether the statement of arresting officer contained in the counter-affidavit to the effect that compliance of provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made giving details of offence somewhat similar to the charge framed by the court for trial of case, can be relied upon without a corresponding entry in General Diary/recovery Memo giving details of the grounds told to the accused at the time of arrest ? (ii) Whether it is the statutory duty of prosecution to prove compli ance of provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or it is necessary for the arrested person to file an affidavit that full grounds of arrest were not told to him at the time of arrest ? Let the papers be placed before the Honble Acting Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench for deciding the above referred questions. 17. As the decision on the above referred questions will take time to come, the applicant, Vikram, is granted bail. Let him be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. Application allowed. .