JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. This matter was taken up yesterday. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner had concluded his arguments and, thereafter, Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the ACB had started his arguments, however, the same was not over and, therefore, the matter has been posted for today and Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta has concluded his arguments today and, thereafter, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has replied to the argument of the learned counsel for the ACB. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the remand order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.09/2025. The further prayer is made for quashing and setting-aside the arrest of the petitioner, whereby, the learned Special Judge remanded the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding Section of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 61(2) read with 318/336/340/316/45 and 49) and Section 7(c)/12/13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prayer is also made to release the petitioner forthwith from the custody. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has investigated the matter and the officials of the Excise and Prohibition Department and Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited and two private placement agencies, primarily selected by the Excise and Prohibition Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, namely, (1) M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Private Limited and (2) M/s Marshan Innovative Security Services Private Limited, in collusion, have allegedly engaged in forgery, used fake bank guarantees to tarnish the reputation of the concerned bank, committed fraud, cheated the Government, manipulated documents, and caused financial loss to the State exchequer to the tune of approximately Rs.38 Crores while securing illegal benefits through collective criminal conduct, in violation of prescribed tender and audit regulations. 4. It was further alleged that due to the deliberate omission and inaction of concerned officials, private placement agencies submitted fraudulent bank guarantees to secure contracts for providing manpower to retail excise shops, resulting in a substantial loss to Government revenue, estimated to the tune of approximately Rs.38 Crores. 5. It was also alleged that the officials were knowing the fraudulent nature of these guarantees and intentionally refrained from enforcing them, thereby protecting private parties at the cost of over Rs.200 Crore in public funds. 5. It was also alleged that the officials were knowing the fraudulent nature of these guarantees and intentionally refrained from enforcing them, thereby protecting private parties at the cost of over Rs.200 Crore in public funds. Even after issuing demand notices, the Department avoided recovery efforts, suggesting collusion and institutional corruption. 6. It was further alleged that the agencies have failed to deposit the full amount of liquor sales revenue into the Government treasury. It was alleged that no action was taken by the officials to recover mounting deficits in spite of retail policy mandating monthly assessments and invocation of bank guarantees in case of Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR) and shortfalls. 7. It was also alleged that the petitioner is senior I.A.S. officer posted in the State of Jharkhand; served as the Excise Secretary and concurrently held the position of Managing Director of Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited (JSBCL) and he was having control over policy making, departmental administration and operational execution which granted him authority over the selection, supervision and financial regulation of placement agencies. In the aforesaid backgrounds, the ACB has registered the FIR dated 20.05.2025 against the petitioner and Shri Gajendra Singh, Joint Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi along with other related officers/employees in connection with allegations of irregularities in the selection of agencies and alleged revenue loss during the implementation and enforcement of the Jharkhand Excise Policy, 2022. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 8. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the police case, the FIR was lodged on 20.05.2025 at 07:30 A.M. and immediately thereafter within two hours, the opposite party agency arrived at the petitioner’s residence at around 09:30 A.M. and picked him up in the name of investigation and the petitioner was thereafter formally arrested at 03:15 P.M. on the same day, i.e., 20.05.2025. In this background, on much emphasis he argued that this was done without providing the petitioner or his family/friends/lawyer with the grounds of arrest. He submitted that the arrest memo is contained in Annexure-2 in which the ground of arrest in not mentioned. In this background, on much emphasis he argued that this was done without providing the petitioner or his family/friends/lawyer with the grounds of arrest. He submitted that the arrest memo is contained in Annexure-2 in which the ground of arrest in not mentioned. On this ground, he submitted that once the ground of arrest is not provided at the time of arrest and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the order of the learned Court, there is clear violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/ Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He further elaborated his arguments by way of submitting that it is no longer res integra that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrested individual forthwith. He submitted that the ground of arrest was not provided to the petitioner. He further submitted that it was objected by the petitioner by way of filing an objection application before the learned Special Judge, thereafter, the opposite party agency prepared and supplied the alleged grounds of arrest and this was done more than 24 hours after the petitioner’s arrest and also after the impugned order has been passed and he was remanded to judicial custody. He also submitted that the learned Special Judge has not adhered the mandatory provision provided under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C./Section 47 of BNSS as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. According to him, there is serious procedural lapse and in view of that, the petitioner’s liberty has been snatched and, therefore, he is entitled to be released forthwith from the custody. All these arguments, he has placed by way of inviting attention of the Court to the FIR, the refusal made by the petitioner on the arrest memo as well as the remand order dated 20.05.2025. He has also placed Section 50 of the Cr.P.C./Section 47 of BNSS and objection application filed by the petitioner, contained at page 148 of the petition. By way of placing the impugned order, he submitted that there is no whisper of the grounds of not supplying in written form. He has also placed Section 50 of the Cr.P.C./Section 47 of BNSS and objection application filed by the petitioner, contained at page 148 of the petition. By way of placing the impugned order, he submitted that there is no whisper of the grounds of not supplying in written form. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 : 2025 3 Supreme 363 . He referred paragraphs 14, 16 and 21 of the said judgment, which read as under: “14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 16. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 16. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a charge-sheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge-sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned Senior Counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge-sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.” CONCLUSIONS 21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” Relying on the above judgment particularly the conclusion made in paragraph 21(b) and (c), much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of placing these paragraphs, he submitted that it was the onus on the investigating agency to prove the compliance and facts as was presented in the present case, which has not been proved and in view of that, the arrest is in violation of the judgment passed in Vihaan Kumar (supra) 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 : 2024 4 Supreme 708 . He referred paragraph 19 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” By way of placing the above judgment, he submitted that the supply of ground is a must, as has been held in the above judgment. 10. By way of placing reliance at page 150 of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds are even served after 24 hours and the petitioner has received and signed the same. The time has also been disclosed at 04:15 P.M. In this background, he submitted that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated and right of the petitioner has been curtailed and in view of that, the remand may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner may kindly be directed to be released forthwith from the custody. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 and submits that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced compilation of the judgments and drawn attention of the Court to page 112 of the said compilation and submitted that the provision of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India have been further reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Marfing Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 548 . He also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pranav Kuckreja v. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9549. 13. He also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pranav Kuckreja v. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9549. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn attention of the Court to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the ACB and submitted that station diary has been brought on record at page 31 thereof, wherein, it has been disclosed that the grounds have been communicated to the petitioner. According to him, this was after thought by the ACB and this was not done as per his knowledge. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that remand by the learned Magistrate was further emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) at paragraph 20 and if non- compliance is there of supplying the ground, the arrest is required to be declared as illegal. On these grounds, he submitted that the remand order may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner may kindly be directed to be released forthwith from the custody. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACB: 15. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-ACB opposed the prayer and submitted that so far as ACB is concerned, the procedure of arrest and remand has been fully followed. He placed Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India along with Section 47 of BNSS and submitted that there is no requirement of providing the ground in writing. He submitted that even the word ‘writing’ is not disclosed in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS says that it shall be forthwith. He also submitted that in light of Section 35 of BNSS, the ACB has followed the statutory provision, as the punishment alleged against the petitioner is on the basis of credible information and it extends to more than 7 years. According to him, in light of these, the ACB has acted and there is no illegality in the entire procedure of arrest of the petitioner. 16. According to him, in light of these, the ACB has acted and there is no illegality in the entire procedure of arrest of the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that so far as Pankaj Bansal case (supra) is concerned, much reliance has been placed by the petitioner, however, that case was arising out of a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein there is express provision of providing the reason to believe in writing in light of Section 19 of the said Act. He further submitted that so far as Vihaan Kumar (supra) case is concerned, in that judgment the cases of Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra) have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that so far as the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) is concerned, that case was filed under Section 43-B(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘UAPA’). 17. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that the arrest was made on 20.05.2025 and within half an hour, the petitioner was produced before the learned Court, whereby, he has been remanded to judicial custody. He drawn attention of the Court to Annexure-3 Series of the petition and submitted that the grounds of arrest have been provided to the petitioner. At that stage, he submitted that the petitioner is also an accused in FIR No.26/2024 registered by the State Economic Offence, ACB, Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh. He submitted that initially preliminary enquiry being P.E. No.03/2024, dated 27.09.2024 was instituted against the petitioner and in the said preliminary enquiry, entire material has come and the petitioner was noticed and in spite of that, he has not appeared meaning thereby the petitioner was knowing the grounds why the FIR has been registered and intentionally, he has not cooperated in the preliminary enquiry. He submitted that the petitioner is a senior IAS officer and he knew the grounds of arrest and intentionally he has refused to sign the arrest memo and in view of that, the arrest memo was served upon the bodyguard of the petitioner on the same day. He submitted that the petitioner is a senior IAS officer and he knew the grounds of arrest and intentionally he has refused to sign the arrest memo and in view of that, the arrest memo was served upon the bodyguard of the petitioner on the same day. He also submitted that the petitioner’s Advocate was heard at the time of remand and by way of placing the said order, he submitted that only ground was argued before the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is having some ailment and in view of that, the learned Court after remand has directed to take care of the petitioner in light of the ailment. He submitted that the said remand order was later signed by the petitioner and he has not protested in signing the remand memo, which further suggests that remand ground has been provided to the petitioner. He drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi and submitted that in the said order, the learned Court has recorded in clear terms that the I.O. has submitted micro SD card marked as “A” in sealed envelope related to the video of explanation of ground of arrest to the petitioner and Gajendra Singh and that has been ordered to keep in a safe custody in ACB Malkhana by the I.O. and produce the same before the Court as and when required. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB again drawn attention of the Court to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS and submitted that so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, all procedures have been followed and the petitioner was also informed orally as well as by the video recording and, as such, there is full compliance of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB also submitted that in the supplementary counter affidavit, station diary has been brought on record at page 31, wherein, it has stated in clear terms that the petitioner was informed about the arrest ground and it was also recorded in the form of video and that has been kept in SD memory card. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB also submitted that in the supplementary counter affidavit, station diary has been brought on record at page 31, wherein, it has stated in clear terms that the petitioner was informed about the arrest ground and it was also recorded in the form of video and that has been kept in SD memory card. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that so far as arrest is concerned, that was subject-matter before the 3 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of Madhu Limaye and others , reported in (1969) 1 SCC 292 . He referred paragraph 10 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “10. Article 22(1) embodies a rule which has always been regarded as vital and fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in all legal systems where the rule of law prevails. For example, the 6th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America contains similar provisions and so does article 34 of the Japanese Constitution of 1946. In England whenever an arrest is made without a warrant, the arrested person has a right to be informed not only that he is being arrested but also of the reasons or grounds for the arrest. The House of Lords in Christie v. Leachinsky [[1947] A.C. 573 : (1947) 1 All ELR 567] went into the origin and development of this rule. In the words of Viscount Simon if a policeman who entertained a reasonable suspicion that X had committed a felony were at liberty to arrest him and march him off to a police station without giving any explanation of why he was doing this, the prima facie right of personal liberty would be gravely infringed. Viscount Simon laid down several propositions which were not meant to be exhaustive. For our purposes we may refer to the first and the third: “1. If a policeman arrests without warrant upon reasonable suspicion of felony, or of other crime of a sort which does not require a warrant, he must in ordinary circumstances inform the person arrested of the true ground of arrest. He is not entitled to keep the reason to himself or to give a reason which is not the true reason. In other words, a citizen is entitled to know on what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is seized. 2. He is not entitled to keep the reason to himself or to give a reason which is not the true reason. In other words, a citizen is entitled to know on what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is seized. 2. * * * 3. The requirement that the person arrested should be informed of the reason why he is seized naturally does not exist if the circumstances are such that he must know the general nature of the alleged offence for which he is detained.” ………..” By way of placing the above judgment, he submitted that there has been explanation in what circumstances the grounds are required to be provided and in light of that also, the ACB has followed the procedure and there is no illegality. 21. According to him, criminal antecedent has been suppressed by the petitioner and he has not disclosed that fact that he is also an accused in a case registered by the ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 22. By way of referring commentary on the Constitution of India by Mr. D.D. Basu, he submitted that there are several instances provided therein in what circumstances how investigating agency can act. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ACB has also followed the same and in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that in the case of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra , reported in AIR 2012 SC 3565 at paragraph 484, Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India have been further considered. He referred paragraph 484 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “ 484. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the right to access to legal aid, to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner, arises when a person arrested in connection with a cognizable offence is first produced before a magistrate. He referred paragraph 484 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “ 484. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the right to access to legal aid, to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner, arises when a person arrested in connection with a cognizable offence is first produced before a magistrate. We, accordingly, hold that it is the duty and obligation of the magistrate before whom a person accused of committing a cognizable offence is first produced to make him fully aware that it is his right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner and, in case he has no means to engage a lawyer of his choice, that one would be provided to him from legal aid at the expense of the State. The right flows from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and needs to be strictly enforced. We, accordingly, direct all the magistrates in the country to faithfully discharge the aforesaid duty and obligation and further make it clear that any failure to fully discharge the duty would amount to dereliction in duty and would make the concerned magistrate liable to departmental proceedings.” Relying on the above judgment, he submitted that there is no doubt if the procedure is not followed, the Court is competent to say that it is not in accordance with law, however, the right is given to a person, who is not having a lawyer and no capacity to engage anybody, now the Courts are taking care of it and this aspect of the matter has been considered in the said case. He submitted that so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, his lawyer was present and he has fully defended the case of the petitioner at the time of remand and, thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB has also distinguished the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and drawn attention of the Court to paragraphs 13 and 15 of the said judgment and submitted that the facts and circumstances of each case is to be understood separately. He submitted that in paragraph 13, it has been said that the communication should be meaningful and in paragraph 15, it is suggestive in nature. 25. He submitted that in paragraph 13, it has been said that the communication should be meaningful and in paragraph 15, it is suggestive in nature. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB also submitted that so far as judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Marphing Tamang (supra) is concerned, in the said case the FIR was registered on 17.05.2024 and the accused was remanded on 18.05.2024 and in that background, the said order has been passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 26. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Pranav Kuckreja (supra) is concerned, in that case the petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2023 and remanded on the next day i.e., 13.01.2023 and in the arrest memo, no ground of arrest was provided and even in remand application, no ground was provided and, in that background, that order has been passed. So far as the petitioner’s case is concerned, that is distinguishable. On these grounds, he submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and in view of that, this case is fit to be rejected. REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITONER: 27. In reply, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through Video Conferencing submitted that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was considered at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two of the judgments i.e. Vihaan Kumar and Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and in clear terms, it has been stated that the ground of arrest must be in writing. He submitted that even the Vihaan Kumar’s (supra) case is not against Madhu Limaye’s (supra) case. He drawn attention of the Court to paragraph 25 of Vihaan Kumar’s case and further paragraph 48 of the Prabir Purkayastha’s case as well as two judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. He further drawn attention of the Court to paragraph 21 of the Vihaan Kumar’s case and further made emphasis on directions issued in paragraphs (b) and (c) thereof and submitted that written ground is necessary. On these grounds, he submitted that entire process of arrest of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner may be directed to be released forthwith from the custody. ANALYSIS: 28. On these grounds, he submitted that entire process of arrest of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner may be directed to be released forthwith from the custody. ANALYSIS: 28. This Court is conscious of the fact that this Court is examining liberty of the person, who has been arrested by the ACB, Ranchi. This Court is not having any iota of doubt in the mind that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS/Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. has to be followed mandatorily. The only question remains to be decided in the present case as to whether the procedure has been followed or not in the remand. 29. Admittedly, the FIR was registered on 20.05.2025 at 07:30 A.M. and the ACB visited the residence of the petitioner at 09:30 A.M. and he was taken for investigation and, thereafter, the petitioner was formally arrested at 03:15 P.M. on the same day, i.e., 20.05.2025. The petitioner has refused to sign the arrest memo, contained in Annexure-2. Annexure-3 Series are the certified copy of remand application by the ACB, dated 20.05.2025, which is contained in the memo of arrest, the medical examination of the petitioner as well as Aadhar Card of the petitioner. The objection application is contained at page 148 and Annexure-4 is the ground of arrest received by the petitioner on 21.05.2025. The impugned order is dated 20.05.2025. 30. For ready reference, Article 22(1) of Constitution of India is quoted herein below: “22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” In light of the said provision made under the Constitution of India, the requirement is there to inform the grounds for such arrest as soon as possible. 31. Section 47 of the BNSS speaks as under: “47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. 31. Section 47 of the BNSS speaks as under: “47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. (1) Every police officer or other person 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. (2)Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.” In light of the above, ground is required to be provided forthwith. 32. In both the provisions, the word “writing” is missing, however, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been interpreted several times by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in two of the judgments recently on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Vihaan Kumar and Prabir Purkayastha (supra) 33. In the case of Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) , wherein, at paragraphs 21 to 23, it has been held as under: “ 21. In view of the above, the expression ?as soon as may be? contained in Section 19 PMLA is required to be construed as — as early as possible without avoidable delay? or ?within reasonably convenient? or ?reasonably requisite? period of time. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the officer concerned to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the adjudicating authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the court concerned within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. 22. 22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [ Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 ] , it has been categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also observed that the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty- four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, in our opinion the person arrested, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 23. As discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal case [ Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , (2024) 7 SCC 576 ] also noticing the inconsistent practice being followed by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, ?henceforth?, meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The very use of the word ?henceforth? implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Singhvi for the appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary ?henceforth? that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Singhvi for the appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary ?henceforth? that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Hence, non- furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case [ Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India , (2024) 7 SCC 576 ] could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the officer concerned in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest is a sufficient compliance of Section 19 PMLA as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal [ Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 ].” 34. In the aforesaid paragraph 22, the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 has been considered, wherein, it has been held that so long as the person has been informed by the ground of arrest, that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has further held that the person arrested if he is informed or made aware orally about the ground of arrest at the time of his arrest and furnish written communication about the ground of arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and within reasonable convenient and exclusive time is 24 hours of his arrest. In view of that, it will be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act and also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 35. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he has refused to sign the memo of arrest. The petitioner is an accused in another ACB case registered by Chhattisgarh Government. Pursuant to that, preliminary enquiry has been instituted and the petitioner has been called upon and he has refused to appear and thereafter the FIR has been registered. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he has refused to sign the memo of arrest. The petitioner is an accused in another ACB case registered by Chhattisgarh Government. Pursuant to that, preliminary enquiry has been instituted and the petitioner has been called upon and he has refused to appear and thereafter the FIR has been registered. Prima facie, the petitioner knew in what case, he is being taken into custody and moreover, merely he has refused to sign it, he has not stated that the ground has not been supplied to him. The document is there on the record, however, the arrest memo was served upon the bodyguard on the same day. The bodyguard was competent to communicate the things to the family members and others. Further, the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 also suggests that the lawyer of the petitioner was present before the Court and he has not argued that the ground has not been supplied to the petitioner. Moreover, the lawyer of the petitioner has not taken plea before the learned Court that the petitioner has not signed the memo of arrest rather, he has taken plea of release of the petitioner on health ground. The memo of remand was signed by the petitioner and even signing of the remand memo by the petitioner was not argued before the learned Court and it has been argued herein that the Court has not considered the argument of not supplying the ground by the ACB. The learned Court has passed the following order dated 20.05.2025: “ 20.05.2025: Received FIR of A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.09/2025 dated 20.05.2025 for the offence U/S- 120-B IPC r/w 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of IPC (Corresponding Section of BNS Sec 61(2) r/w Sec 318/336/340/316/45 and 49) and Section 7(c)/ 12, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of PC Act 1988 (Amended in 2018) registered against accused persons namely (i) Vinay Kumar Choubey (ii) Gajendra Singh (iii) Sudhir Kumar (iv) Sudhir Kumar Das (v) Navendu Shekhar (vi) Uday Kumar Das (vii) Amit Kumar (viii) Md Mohsin Kamal Rana (ix) Smt Sheetal Kumari (x) Director of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt Ltd (xi) Director of M/s Marshan Innovative Security Services Pvt (xii) Neeraj Kumar Singh & (xiii) Shyam Sharan & Others alongwith annextures. Register it and put up 03.06.2025 awaiting Final Form (Dictated) Sd/- Special Judge, ACB Ranchi 20.05.2025: The I.O of the case Sri Santosh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ranchi has arrested and produced the FIR named accused persons namely 1. Vinay Kumar Choubey , aged about 50 yrs S/o Devendra Choubey R/o C-5, Central Ashoka Colony. Ashok Nagar, Road No. 3, Pin- 834002, Jharkhand, Ranchi and 2. Gajendra Kumar Singh , aged about 54 yrs, S/o- Gopal Sharan Singh R/o Anuj-48/49, Gautam Green Nagar, BSNL Training Centre near Getlatu,- Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009, before me with the help of an escort party. The I.O. has also produced the arrest memo dated 20.05.2025 of both accused persons, medical certificate and at the time of remand. The accused persons namely 1 Vinay Kumar Choubey and 2. Gajendra Kumar Singh have not complained about any ill-treatment against the escort party or officials of investigating agency and stated that information of their arrest have already been given to their family members. The Ld Advocate Anil Kumar Singh representing the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey was also present at the time of remand and raised objection in writing during the proceeding and submitted that the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey is suffering from serious diseases which requires specialized treatment and prayed that his client may be provided proper medical facility in judicial custody. Heard and perused the case record, there is serious allegation against the accused persons which are cognizable and non- bailable in nature. As such, both the accused persons namely Vinay Kumar Choubey and Gajendra Kumar Singh are remanded in this case for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC r/w 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of IPC (Corresponding Section of BNS Sec 61(2) r/W Sec 318/336/340/316/45 and 49) and Section 7(c)/ 12, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (a) of PC Act 1988 (Amended in 2018) and sent to BMC Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. The Jail Authority is directed to provide proper medication to the both the accused persons as per Jail manual and take care of their human rights according to relevant guidelines issued in this regard and produce them through video-conferencing on 03.06.2025 (Dictated) Sd/- Special Judge, ACB Ranchi” 36. The order dated 09.06.2025 further clearly suggests that the ground was also provided orally, which was recorded in the video form as SD card was produced before the learned Court, which was marked as “A”. The order dated 09.06.2025 further clearly suggests that the ground was also provided orally, which was recorded in the video form as SD card was produced before the learned Court, which was marked as “A”. The said order is quoted herein below: “09.06.2025 Custody accused Gajendra Kumar Singh, Sudhir Kumar, Sudhir Kumar Das & Neeraj Singh produced from Jail through video-conferencing and remanded back to jail. Custody accused Vinay Kumar Choubey is under treatment at RIMS Ranchi and Jail Authority prays for fixing next date to produce the accused. Put up on 23.06 2025 for awaiting F.F. Dictated Sd/- Special Judge ACB Ranchi Later on 09.06.2025 The I.O. of the case has filed a petition through the Ld Special P.P for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused Binay Kumar Singh who is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that during the course of investigation incriminating materials surfaced against many non-FIR named accused persons demonstrating their direct involvement in the offences and one of those suspected accused is Binay Kumar Singh, and as a result of this the I.O. of the case has issued notice under section 35(3) notice under BNSS on 26.05.2025 with a direction to appear in the ACB office on 30.05.2025 at 11.00 A.M but he sent a reply on 29.05.2025 wherein he stressed on his busy schedule and provided copies of the air tickets, but not the pre-scheduled appointments with his doctors except one prescription dated 29.05.2025 and failed to appear in compliance of the notice. The Spl P.P submitted that further on dated 03.06.2025 a notice under Section 35(3) was issued for his appearance on 06.06.2025, but he once again did not appeared and sent a un-signed reply on mobile number of the I.O. and stated that he wants to send his delegate and is avoiding his physical appearance and participation in the investigation and his conduct is very non-cooperative, suspicious and doubtful. The Special P.P. of ACB submitted that the accused Binay Kumar Singh in his replies has referred to the cancellation of the air ticket to London so as to cooperate in investigation but his, assurance to cooperate is a ploy to deceive the police and he may leave the country any time. The Special P.P. of ACB submitted that the accused Binay Kumar Singh in his replies has referred to the cancellation of the air ticket to London so as to cooperate in investigation but his, assurance to cooperate is a ploy to deceive the police and he may leave the country any time. The Special PP further submitted that the accused is unwilling to get himself identified and wants to hide the real facts and evidences of this case and therefore stressing on sending his representative which is in breach of Section 35(6) BNSS and it is believed that he is engaged in destroying the evidences and even the claim of multiple and serious illness necessitating immediate medical intervention is not supported by any documentary evidence and submitted that the role of the accused Binay Kumar Singh is at a very crucial stage and his presence before the I.O. is necessity for ascertainment of complete truth for effective investigation and prayed that non bailable warrant of arrest may be issued against the accused. Heard, persued the case record of case diary, prayer is allowed. O/c is directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against Binay Kumar Singh. Put up on date fixed. Dictated Sd/- Special Judge ACB Ranchi Later on 09.06.2025 The Special P.P filed three seperate petitions for remanding the accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar Das, Sudhir Kumar & Neeraj Kumar Singh, the copies of the petition have been duly served to the Ld counsels on behalf of the accused persons. Also a petition has been filed on behalf of the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey through his Ld counsel for protest for not further extend the remand of the petitioner Vinay Kumar Choubey in absence of any written prayer of ACB. Heard, put up all these petitions on 10.06.2025 only for hearing. Further a petition for rectification in memo of arrest of accused Sudhir Kumar Das has been filed by the I.O. of the case, which is duly forwarded by the Spl P.P of ACB, Ranchi. Seen, prayer is allowed. Olc is directed to make necessary correction. Further a petition has been filed by the I.O. regarding submission of the micro SD card Marked "A" in a sealed envelope, related to the video of explanation of ground of arrest to the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey and Gajendra Singh. Seen, prayer is allowed. Olc is directed to make necessary correction. Further a petition has been filed by the I.O. regarding submission of the micro SD card Marked "A" in a sealed envelope, related to the video of explanation of ground of arrest to the accused Vinay Kumar Choubey and Gajendra Singh. Heard, Let micro SD card Marked "A" in a sealed envelope be handed over to the I.O. for keeping it in safe custody in ACB Malkhana to be produced before the court as and when required. Dictated Sd/- Special Judge ACB Ranchi” In the above order, explanation of ground of arrest to the petitioner is found to be explained in the form of video which has been brought on record by way of SD card and the learned Court has directed to keep the same in the ACB Malkhana. 37. Even if it is accepted that the said SD card is not provided to the petitioner, however, oral communication of ground of arrest is proved in light of the production of the said video by way of SD card, which has been accepted by the learned Court. 38. Further, the station diary is contained at page 39 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the ground of arrest has been provided to the petitioner before the arrest and in the said paragraph, it has also been disclosed that the videography has also been made of explaining all the grounds and it has been recorded in the SD card. Looking into the said station diary, prima facie, it appears that there is no manipulation as the words are not appeared to be inserted in a particular paragraph and on the same day at 15:35 hours, the wife of the petitioner was also informed about the arrest by the ACB, which has also come in the station diary. Thus, as per the station day, it prima facie appears that no interpolation has been made. 39. In the aforesaid background, the document on the record clearly suggests that the petitioner has been informed about the ground of arrest and even the lawyer has not argued that the ground has not been supplied and the petitioner has signed the remand memo without any protest. The petitioner is a senior IAS officer. 39. In the aforesaid background, the document on the record clearly suggests that the petitioner has been informed about the ground of arrest and even the lawyer has not argued that the ground has not been supplied and the petitioner has signed the remand memo without any protest. The petitioner is a senior IAS officer. If he has chosen not to sign the memo of arrest, he was competent to at least provide his protest in the remand order and thereafter to sign. 40. The judgments are applicable in the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court initially has clearly opined that so far as Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS/Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, that is the requirement and if that is not followed, certainly the Court is required to interfere with and that is ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar and Prabir Purkayastha (supra) 41. Further, the communication has to be made in clear terms and that has been further discussed at paragraph 13 of the judgment passed in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) 42. Further, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to procedure established by law. 43. On production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is also required to examine whether the reasons given by the Investigating Officer are justified on the material placed before him by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, simple opinion is not sufficient. It must be supported by materials on record giving rise to such opinion. To that extent, the learned Magistrate is required to make judicial enquiry, then the Magistrate can only authorize intention of the arrested accused. 44. The material on record such as production warrant, wherein, ground is disclosed, hearing providing to the learned counsel of the petitioner wherein he has not argued that ground of arrest has not been pointed and only he has argued about health of the petitioner and signing by the petitioner on the remand order by the margin of the same without any objection and station diary which speaks of providing the ground in writing and orally also and recorded SD memory card and information provided to the wife of the petitioner clearly suggest that the procedure has been followed. 45. 45. This is not a regular bail application. On the ground of illegal arrest, the prayer is also made to release. When procedure found to be followed, the second prayer of release of the petitioner on that ground cannot be allowed. 46. The case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) , the petitioner challenged his arrest on the ground that he was not informed of the reasons of his arrest, as mandated by Section 19 of the P.M.L.A. But while referring to Section 19 of the P.M.L.A. and the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and V. Senthil Balaji v. State represented by Deputy Director , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 51 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that accused must be informed of the ground of arrest. In the case in hand, there is sufficient material on record of informing the petitioner the grounds of arrest. In India, the law mandates that the ground of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person and this communication ideally be immediate. However, a short delay in informing the person of the reason for arrest is permissible and a delay upto 24 hours is often considered acceptable. 47. Further, the case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that arrest is illegal if the arrested person is not informed of the ground of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, whereas, in the case in hand, ground of arrest has been informed to the arrested person within 24 hours of his arrest. Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishor Arora (supra) while the written ground need not be furnished immediately at the time of arrest, they must be provided within 24 hours. 48. What has been discussed herein above, the materials on record clearly suggest that the petitioner knew the facts and even the grounds of arrest have been provided. The production warrant contained at page 147 further suggests that the grounds are there. 49. 48. What has been discussed herein above, the materials on record clearly suggest that the petitioner knew the facts and even the grounds of arrest have been provided. The production warrant contained at page 147 further suggests that the grounds are there. 49. In the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, the Court comes to a conclusion that the grounds of arrest have been provided to the petitioner as well as to his wife, which has come in the station diary and further to the petitioner on the next day however i.e. one hour late of 24 hours. Only because he has received the same on the next day, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not knowing the things. The facts as discussed herein above clearly suggest that the petitioner knew about the grounds of arrest and it has also come in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed.