SCENE 1

[Door opens. Officers walk in briskly.]

Investigating Officer (IO) (sternly):

Mr. Prabir Purkayastha?

Prabir (standing up, cautious):

Yes. Who are you?

IO (flashing ID):
Special Cell, Delhi Police. You are being arrested under serious charges —
Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, and 22C of the UAPA, and Sections 153A and 120B of the IPC.

Prabir (taken aback):

On what basis? Where is the FIR? What are the allegations against me?

IO (handing a folded paper):

This is your arrest memo. Sign here.

(Prabir takes the memo, opens it, reads slowly.)

Prabir (confused, then assertive):

This memo only says "arrested for purposes of investigation, to prevent tampering with
evidence and ensure appearance in court."
Where are the specific grounds of arrest? What have I done? What evidence?

IO (shrugging, impatient):
You will know during the investigation.

Prabir (firmly):
That’s a violation of my rights.
you are legally bound to communicate the grounds of my arrest — not vague reasons, but
actual charges and factual basis.
(The IO remains silent, signaling officers to take Prabir.)

Prabir (resisting slightly):

I demand my lawyer be informed immediately.
You cannot just abduct me without process!

IO (coldly):
We will inform your lawyer in due course. Let’s move.

[Officers forcibly escort Prabir out. Lights dim slightly to indicate transition.]

SCENE 2-
[Arshdeep (urgently entering, speaking to a Investigation officer]
I’m Advocate Arshdeep Khurana. I represent Mr. Prabir Purkayastha.
I demand immediate access to my client and a copy of the FIR under Section 41D CrPC and
Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

(Arshdeep notices Prabir across the room, waves to him.)

Arshdeep (moving closer, raising voice slightly):

Mr. IO! Under Section 57 CrPC, you must produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
Under Section 41B and 41D CrPC, he has a right to consult a lawyer during interrogation.
And under Article 22(1), you must communicate the grounds of arrest immediately and
clearly.

Investigating Officer (arriving, dismissive):

Counsel, everything is being done by the book. We’ll inform you when the remand hearing
happens.

Arshdeep (insistent):
Has the remand application been prepared? I have a right to receive it and oppose any illegal
remand under Section 167 CrPC.

(The IO looks at a colleague, signals him to be quiet.)

IO (smirking slightly):
Why don’t you go home, Advocate? It’s going to be a long night. We’ll send you a notice if
needed.

Arshdeep (angrily):
You are trying to bypass the legal process!
I am putting it on record: Any remand sought without informing me violates Section 167
CrPC and renders the custody illegal.

Prabir (from his seat, calm but firm):

Please ensure that my lawyer is informed before any court production.

IO (shrugging sarcastically):
Duly noted.

(The officers move towards a side door, whispering.)

IO (whispering to fellow officer):

I will take him early morning... quietly to the judge’s residence.
Remand before 6 AM. By the time his lawyer wakes up, it’ll all be over.

SCENE 3 –

[IO and team enter quietly.]

IO (respectfully but hurried):
Good morning, Your Honour.
We have brought Mr. Prabir Purkayastha for remand under Section 167 CrPC.
We seek 7 days’ police custody for further investigation.

Remand Judge (rubbing eyes, glancing at documents):

Where is his counsel?

IO (evasively):
A counsel is present, My Lord — Advocate Umakant Kataria.

(The stand-in "remand advocate" steps forward hesitantly.)

Remand Advocate (awkwardly):

My Lord, I have just been asked to appear. I have not been briefed by the accused personally.

Prabir (stepping forward, clear and calm):

Your Honour, my lawyer is Advocate Arshdeep Khurana.
He was actively in touch with the Police. He was deliberately not informed of this
production.

Remand Judge (surprised):

Was notice served to Mr. Khurana?

IO (quickly):
He was unreachable, Your Honour. We had to proceed urgently because of national security
considerations.

Prabir (urgently):
I request that my advocate be called immediately.
The remand application was not shown to me. I have not been informed of the specific
grounds of arrest, either orally or in writing.

IO (interrupting, trying to move things along):

My Lord, the remand papers are complete. Grounds are generic but sufficient — the accused
may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses. This is a UAPA matter — urgency is
paramount.

Remand Judge (reluctantly flipping through papers):

(Sighs.)
Alright. Seven days police custody granted.

(He hastily signs the remand order at exactly 6:00 AM.)

[As the IO collects the remand papers, a junior officer quietly types a WhatsApp
message to Advocate Arshdeep Khurana at 7:07 AM — AFTER remand has been
granted.]
SCENE 4 –

[Arshdeep (sitting at desk, still half-asleep, checking his phone)]

(He opens WhatsApp. Reads a message.)

Message 1 (from police contact):

"Remand granted. Seven days police custody."
(Time sent: 7:07 AM)

(Arshdeep sits bolt upright. Immediately a second message.)

Message 2 (attachment):
"Attached: Grounds of Arrest under UAPA."

Arshdeep (speaking aloud in disbelief):

What?! Remand already granted?
At 7 AM? Without even serving me the grounds?
Without allowing me to argue

(He flips open the attachment and reads.)

Arshdeep (reading aloud, voice rising):

"Reasons: To prevent tampering with evidence, ensure appearance, prevent influencing
witnesses..."
These are generic reasons, not specific grounds

(He grabs his phone, dials furiously.)

Arshdeep (on call, angry and urgent):

(Into phone)
This is Advocate Arshdeep Khurana.
Under which authority did you produce Mr. Purkayastha before the Magistrate at dawn
without notifying me?
Under Section 41D CrPC, he had a right to meet his counsel.
Under Article 22(1), he had a constitutional right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice.
You have violated every principle of lawful arrest!

(Pause. He listens. His expression hardens.)

Arshdeep (resolute):
You deliberately secured remand before I could appear, and you’re now pretending
compliance by WhatsApp after the fact.
I will challenge this before the High Court

(He hangs up sharply, gathers his files, and exits swiftly.)

SCENE 5 –
[Court convenes. Kapil Sibal rises, with Arshdeep assisting. State counsel stands ready.
Prabir sits quietly in custody.]

Kapil Sibal (speaking respectfully but firmly):

May it please Your Lordship,
We are before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 and 482 CrPC to challenge the arrest
and police custody remand of Mr. Prabir Purkayastha, which are patently illegal,
unconstitutional, and liable to be set aside.

Judge:
On what basis, Mr. Sibal?

Kapil Sibal (forceful):

My Lord, the arrest and remand proceedings suffer from fundamental defects, both under
the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

First, the arrest violates Article 22(1) —

 The accused must be informed promptly and clearly of the grounds of arrest.
 The arrest memo served to Mr. Purkayastha only mentions general reasons like
“preventing tampering of evidence,” “ensuring presence.”
 Specific factual grounds were never communicated at the time of arrest — contrary
to Section 50 CrPC and Section 43B(1) of the UAPA, which require written
communication of grounds.

Judge:
But was a remand order not duly obtained?

Kapil Sibal (pressing):

My Lord, the remand itself was tainted.

 Mr. Purkayastha was produced before the Duty Magistrate at 6:00 AM, without
informing his counsel of choice, in breach of Section 41D CrPC and Article 22(1).
 His counsel, Advocate Arshdeep Khurana, had been in contact with the police but was
deliberately kept uninformed.
 A remand advocate — not chosen by the accused — was produced instead.

Further:
  The grounds of arrest were only sent to the counsel via WhatsApp at 7:07 AM,
after remand had already been granted.

This sequence clearly violates Section 167(1) CrPC, which mandates that a Magistrate must
be satisfied that the arrest itself was lawful before authorizing further detention.

Judge (leaning forward):

But once a Magistrate grants remand, isn’t the custody validated?

Kapil Sibal (emphatically):

No, My Lord.
As held in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023):

"If the arrest itself is unconstitutional, subsequent judicial remand cannot cure the illegality."
Remand can only be granted if the initial arrest is lawful. If the arrest violates fundamental
rights under Articles 21 and 22(1), all subsequent custody collapses.

Moreover, the very endorsement on the remand order that "counsel was heard" appears to
have been inserted later — as evident from a change in handwriting and ink.

Judge (slightly defensive):

But the FIR under UAPA alleges serious offenses. Shouldn’t security concerns be
prioritized?

Kapil Sibal (respectfully but firmly):

Yes, Your Lordship, but national security cannot be used to trample fundamental rights.
The Constitution recognizes no exception to Article 22(1), even for UAPA cases.
Even in national security matters, the process must be fair, transparent, and lawful.

If procedure is violated, personal liberty is sacrificed unlawfully — and no end can

justify such means.

Judge (after a pause):

We will consider.

(He looks at the State counsel.)

State Counsel (briefly):

My Lord, due process has been followed. Minor procedural lapses, if any, do not vitiate the
arrest, especially after charge-sheeting.
Kapil Sibal (sharply in rebuttal):
There are no minor lapses where personal liberty under Article 21 is concerned.
Each procedural guarantee is a constitutional bulwark — not a technicality.

We are dealing not with "minority violations" but a total subversion of procedural rights
from arrest to remand.

Judge (after a brief consultation with clerk):

We are not inclined to interfere.
Petition dismissed.

[Sibal sits down, visibly disappointed but determined. Prabir remains stoic.]

SCENE 6-appeal to the supreme court

Justice Gavai (firmly):

Mr. Sibal, you may proceed.

Kapil Sibal (rising respectfully):

Much obliged, My Lords.

This case concerns the inviolability of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution,
and the procedural safeguards under Article 22(1), read with Sections 41D, 50, 57, and
167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Section 43B(1) of the UAPA.

Justice Mehta:
You say the arrest itself was illegal?

Kapil Sibal (calm, controlled):

Indeed, My Lords.
The arrest memo served to Mr. Purkayastha contained no specific grounds — only generic
reasons like "prevent tampering with evidence" and "ensure presence at trial".

Section 50(1) CrPC requires the specific grounds to be communicated forthwith.

Section 43B(1) UAPA reinforces that, mandating written communication of grounds at the
time of arrest.
Further:

 The accused’s counsel of choice, Advocate Arshdeep Khurana, was deliberately not
informed.
 The police produced Mr. Purkayastha before the Duty Magistrate at 6:00 AM,
obtained police custody remand without notifying his chosen lawyer, thereby
violating Section 41D CrPC and Article 22(1).

Justice Gavai (leaning forward):

Was any counsel present at the remand hearing?

Kapil Sibal:
Yes, My Lords.
But not the counsel of the accused’s choice.
An unbriefed remand advocate was produced without the accused’s consent.
This fundamentally violated the right to be defended "by a legal practitioner of his choice"
under Article 22(1).

Moreover:

 The grounds of arrest were WhatsApped to Advocate Khurana at 7:07 AM —

 After the remand had already been granted at 6:00 AM.

Thus, the accused was denied meaningful opportunity to challenge the remand application,
violating Section 167(1) CrPC.

Justice Mehta (sternly, to ASG):

Mr. Raju, how do you justify these procedural lapses?

ASG Suryaprakash Raju (defensive):

My Lords, the remand order validates the custody.
Moreover, the seriousness of UAPA charges justifies certain procedural flexibility.

Justice Mehta (sharply):

Seriousness of the offense does not dilute constitutional safeguards.

Article 22(1) applies equally — even in UAPA cases.

The requirement is not optional.
Justice Gavai (to Sibal):
Mr. Sibal, do you rely on any precedent?

Kapil Sibal (nodding):

Yes, My Lords.
In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), this Hon'ble Court categorically held:

"Failure to furnish written grounds of arrest renders the arrest illegal and unconstitutional.
Judicial remand cannot cure the fundamental defect."

Thus, once it is shown that written grounds were not provided at the time of arrest,

 The arrest is unconstitutional.

 The remand is vitiated.
 The custody becomes unlawful.

Justice Mehta (firmly to ASG):

There is no getting around it.
Procedural shortcuts cannot override constitutional mandates.

The law under Section 43B(1) UAPA and Section 50 CrPC is crystal clear — grounds
must be communicated at the time of arrest, not later.

The right to counsel of choice under Section 41D CrPC and Article 22(1) is sacrosanct.

Justice Gavai (summing up to ASG):

It is not a matter of minor irregularity —
It is a complete denial of due process from arrest to remand.

ASG (subdued):
My Lords, I leave it to the wisdom of the Court.

Justice Gavai (turning to Sibal):

We will now pronounce the judgment

SCENE 7 –

Justice Gavai (authoring the judgment, speaking clearly and slowly):

In the case before us, we have considered the serious allegations and the material placed on
record.
It is undisputed that:

 At the time of arrest, no specific grounds were furnished in writing to Mr. Prabir
Purkayastha.
 Only generic reasons like "prevent tampering of evidence" were stated.
 Grounds were communicated to his counsel only after remand was already
granted, by way of a WhatsApp message.
 His counsel of choice was not informed or present during the remand proceedings.
 A remand advocate was produced without the accused’s consent.

Justice Mehta (continuing, sternly):

The mandatory procedural safeguards guaranteed under:

 Article 22(1) of the Constitution (right to be informed of grounds and right to

counsel),
 Section 50 CrPC (grounds of arrest to be communicated),
 Section 41D CrPC (right to consult advocate during arrest),
 Section 43B(1) of UAPA (grounds must be furnished in writing),

have been violated flagrantly.

Justice Gavai (firmly):

We reiterate the principle laid down in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023):

"Failure to furnish the written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest renders the arrest
unconstitutional. Subsequent judicial remand cannot cure the fundamental illegality."

Justice Mehta (explaining):

The remand under Section 167 CrPC is permissible only if the arrest itself is lawful and
constitutional.
Where the initial arrest is illegal, the remand order collapses.

In this case:

 Grounds of arrest were not communicated at the time of arrest;

 Counsel of choice was not given an opportunity to oppose remand;
 Remand was obtained clandestinely at the residence of the Judge at 6:00 AM without
notice.

Such conduct strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
Justice Gavai (delivering the operative part):
Accordingly:

 The arrest of Mr. Prabir Purkayastha stands declared illegal and

unconstitutional.
 The remand order dated 4th October 2023 is quashed and set aside.
 The judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing the habeas corpus petition is set
aside.
 Mr. Prabir Purkayastha shall be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in
any other case.