Ahmed Mansoor vs State - S.43B UAPA -Grounds Of Arrest Furnishing
❓
Whether the appellants have been furnished with the grounds of arrest when they were apprehended and, if not, whether an explanation given by the jurisdictional Court at the time of remand, followed by the remand order which indicates that the grounds of arrest were explained, would be in sufficient compliance of Section 43B of the UAPA.?
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967- Section 43B- Explanation given by the jurisdictional Court at the time of remand, followed by the remand order which indicates that the grounds of arrest were explained, can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused.
Case Info
Key Details
- Case name: Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. v. The State Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr.
- Neutral citation: Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 198/2025).
- Coram: Justice M.M. Sundresh; Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
- Judgment date: 14-10-2025 (New Delhi).
Caselaws and Citations
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. — (2024) 7 SCC 576.
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) — (2024) 8 SCC 254.
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. — citation not specified in the document; referred for Section 50A CrPC and Article 22(1) principles.
- Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. — Criminal Appeal No. 2808/2025 (23-05-2025).
- State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. — Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528–3534/2025 (14-08-2025).
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 153A, 153B, 120-B, 34.
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): Sections 13, 18, and 43B (grounds of arrest requirement).
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): Section 19(1) (by analogy from Pankaj Bansal).
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 50A (obligation to inform nominated person).
- Constitution of India: Article 21 (life and personal liberty), Article 22(1) (communicate grounds of arrest), Article 141 (binding precedent).
#SupremeCourt holds that the explanation given by the jurisdictional Court at the time of remand, followed by the remand order which indicates that the grounds of arrest were explained, can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of… https://t.co/YfDjeBnRQn pic.twitter.com/QXV7zeOx5q
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) October 18, 2025