In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the
arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all
offences under all statutes including offences
under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she
understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is
unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in
writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.
The said grounds be communicated in writing
within a reasonable time and in any case at least
two hours prior to production of the arrestee for
remand proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest
and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal
and the person will be at liberty to be set free. {Para 56}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2195 OF 2025
MIHIR RAJESH SHAH Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1288.
Dated: NOVEMBER 06, 2025.
1. These Appeals being Criminal Appeal No.2195 of
2025, Criminal Appeal No.2189 of 2025 and Criminal
Appeal No.2190 of 2025 were originally filed as
Special Leave Petitions where leave was granted vide
Order dated 22.04.2025. Since, in all these Appeals
similar questions of law are involved, they are being
decided by this common judgment. Special Leave
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 2 of 52
Petition (Criminal) No.8704 of 2025 was tagged with
the above-mentioned matters vide Order dated
02.06.2025.
2. The main issue as raised by the Appellants in these
Appeals is the violation of the Appellants’ right under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section
50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC
1973”) now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS 2023”) as the
appellants assert that they were not informed of
grounds of their arrest in writing.
3. For convenience, Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025
is taken as the lead case. The facts in a nutshell are
that on 07.07.2024, a white BMW car, driven at a
high speed, collided violently with the complainant’s
scooter from behind. The force of the impact
propelled both the complainant and his wife onto the
car’s bonnet, whereby the complainant was thrown
to the side, and tragically, his wife became ensnared
between the vehicle’s front left wheel and bumper.
Notwithstanding this grievous state, the driver,
alleged to be Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Appellant
herein, persisted in his reckless flight, dragging the
victim, thereafter absconding without rendering
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 3 of 52
assistance or reporting the incident to authorities.
The victim succumbed to the severe injuries
sustained in this collision, as medically confirmed,
while the complainant sustained minor injuries. FIR
No. 378/2024 was registered at Worli Police Station
under the relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS 2023”), and the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Initial investigative steps included the
identification of the offending vehicle through CCTV
footage, and the discovery near Kalanagar Junction
Flyover of the damaged BMW alongside Rajrishi
Rajendra Singh Bindawat and Rajesh Shah, father of
Mihir Rajesh Shah (hereinafter, “Appellant”). Arrests
soon followed, with co-accused Rajrishi Rajendra
Singh Bindawat being taken into custody on the
same day and Mihir Rajesh Shah being apprehended
on 09.07.2024. The evidence collected firmly
established the Appellant as the driver at the material
time, including CCTV footage capturing his presence
at the wheel, consumption of alcohol shortly before
the incident, an attempt to alter his appearance, and
use of a Fastag registered in his name, amongst other
incriminating particulars.
4. The remand proceedings saw the Appellant being
produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 4 of 52
with initial police custody extending subsequently
into judicial custody; a course contested on the
grounds that the grounds of arrest were not
furnished in writing as mandated by Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS
2023 equivalent to Section 50 of CrPC 1973.
5. The Appellant’s challenge against the legality of
arrest was ultimately considered by the High Court
of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2024
wherein, vide Judgment dated 25.11.2024, the High
Court of Bombay, notwithstanding the
acknowledgment of this procedural lapse, upheld the
validity of arrest due to the Appellant’s conscious
awareness of the gravity of the offence, supported by
substantial evidence and the Appellant’s evasion of
arrest, thereby justifying custody despite the missing
written grounds. The Appellant approached this
Court challenging the Judgment of Bombay High
Court contending that grounds of arrest as mandated
under Section 47 of BNSS 2023 were not informed to
him in writing.
6. This Court, while considering the Special Leave
Petition recorded that the Court is not inclined to
entertain the petition on its merits and issued notice
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 5 of 52
only to the extent of considering the question of
law/legal position. In connected cases, being
Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2025 and Criminal
Appeal No. 2190 of 2025, this Court vide Order dated
22.04.2025, has granted ad interim relief and
directed the Appellants to be released on bail during
pendency of these Appeals. In Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 8704 of 2025 vide Order dated
02.06.2025, ad interim relief was also granted to the
Petitioner therein directing his release on bail. On
13.12.2024, Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel, who
was present in the Court was appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist this Court in this matter.
7. Then, while granting leave on 22.04.2025, this Court
formulated the following questions of law for
consideration:
(a) Whether in each and every case, even
arising out of an offence under Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC 1860”) now Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023) would it
be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to
an accused either before arrest or forthwith
after arrest, and
(b) Whether, even in exceptional cases,
where on account of certain exigencies it
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 6 of 52
will not be possible to furnish the grounds
of arrest either before arrest or immediately
after arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on
the ground of non-compliance with the
provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC 1973
(now Section 47 of BNSS 2023).
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant
submits that the action of the Respondent of
arresting the Appellant without informing the
grounds of arrest is in gross violation of the
constitutional protection and mandate of Article 21
and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and
Section 47 of BNSS 2023. He substantiates his
contention relying upon the decision of this Court in
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others1,
contending that this Court has clearly held that to
meet the requirement of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India, the mode of conveying the
grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so
as to serve the intended purpose and therefore it
must be furnished to the arrestee in writing as a
matter of course.
1 (2024) 7 SCC 576 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 7 of 52
9. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this
Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of
Delhi)2, wherein while dealing with the issue of
communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee in
the offences related to the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”), this Court relying
upon Pankaj Bansal (supra) reiterated that the
grounds of arrest shall be furnished to the person
arrested under UAPA or any other offence in writing
without any exception at the earliest.
10. He further relies upon the decision of this Court in
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another3,
wherein it was held that the requirement of informing
a person arrested, of grounds of arrest is a mandatory
requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and it must be conveyed in such a mode and
method so as to achieve the object of the
constitutional safeguard. He contends that Article 22
of the Constitution of India does not differentiate
between offences under BNS 2023 (earlier IPC 1860)
or offences under any other special statute such as
UAPA, thereby claiming violation of Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS
2 (2024) 8 SCC 254
3 (2025) 5 SCC 799 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 8 of 52
2023 by the Respondent. He, therefore, prays for the
arrest to be declared illegal and the Appellant to be
set at liberty.
11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
Respondent-State submits that the mode of
communication of grounds of arrest is not specified
in the provision of Section 47 of BNSS 2023. The
reliance on the decisions in the cases of Pankaj
Bansal (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra), is
misplaced as both the cases pertain to special
statutes and the facts therein are not similar to the
present case. It is argued that the mandate of Article
22(1) is to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee
and there is no specific statutory mandate to provide
such grounds in writing. The Respondent while
supporting the Judgment of the High Court of
Bombay contends that while informing grounds of
arrest to the arrestee is mandatory, the mode thereof
is not specified, and hence, the Appellant has been
arrested in consonance with law and by following all
procedural safeguards.
12. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the grounds of
arrest must be communicated to the arrested person
in all cases without any exception regardless of the
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 9 of 52
nature of offences i.e. offences under BNS 2023 (IPC
1860) or under any special statute such as UAPA etc.
irrespective of the mode of conveying/
communication specified or not in the statute.
Reliance is placed upon Pankaj Bansal (supra) and
Prabir Purkayastha (supra) for submitting that
even the special statutes do not provide for an
exception from informing grounds of arrest.
13. Further, regarding the mode of informing the
grounds of arrest, learned Amicus Curiae submits
that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well
as the procedural law under BNSS 2023 (CrPC 1973)
do not make it mandatory to provide such grounds in
writing to the arrestee. He submits that as long as the
remand court or any other court is convinced that the
grounds of arrest have been duly communicated, the
mandate under Article 22(1) and BNSS 2023 would
stand satisfied. This Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra)
observed that ideally grounds of arrest should be
informed in writing, however, in Vihaan Kumar
(supra) it was acknowledged that it might not be
practical to provide grounds of arrest to an accused
in each and every case in writing and thus clarified
that there is no mandate to communicate the
grounds of arrest in writing. Nevertheless, for
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 10 of 52
investigations under special statutes such as
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”)
or UAPA, this Court has specifically held that such
grounds of arrest be communicated in writing. The
decisions in cases of Pankaj Bansal (supra) and
Prabir Purkayastha (supra) need to be read
harmoniously with Vihaan Kumar (supra) which
provides as a general rule that grounds of arrest are
not mandated to be communicated in writing.
14. On the aspect of timeframe within which grounds of
arrest must be supplied to the arrested person, he
submits that there is no straightjacket formula
regarding the timeframe within which grounds of
arrest must be communicated/supplied to the
arrested person. The law provides that the grounds
of arrest ought to be communicated at the time of
arrest or at the earliest possible instance. The
grounds of arrest must be provided forthwith i.e.
within a reasonable time so as to allow the arrested
accused an effective opportunity to consult a legal
practitioner and be sufficiently prepared to oppose
remand. The reasonable time would depend on the
facts of each case; however, the grounds must be
provided prior to the remand hearing.
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 11 of 52
15. Learned Amicus Curiae rests his submissions by
stating that there can be no doubt that noncommunication
of the grounds of arrest to the
arrested person amounts to the violation of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, entitling the
arrestee to be released from the custody. However,
there can be no absolute rule that if an arrest is
found to be contrary to law, all investigative
procedures linked to the arrest must be deemed to
have been vitiated. The effect of failure to
communicate grounds of arrest would have to be
seen in the context of proceedings when such an
objection is raised and the nature of investigation
conducted after the arrest of the accused.
16. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties,
learned Amicus Curiae and on perusal of the material
on record, we find it apposite that prior to
undertaking and answering the aforementioned
issues, it is imperative to delve into the constitutional
mandate and statutory provisions relatable to
informing of grounds of arrest to the arrested person
as well as the existing jurisprudence as developed by
this Court while dealing with such provisions.
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 12 of 52
17. The genesis of informing the grounds of arrest to a
person flows from the Constitutional safeguard
provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law”. The expression ‘personal liberty’
has been given a wide meaning through various
judicial pronouncements. One of which is that
personal liberty includes procedural safeguards from
the abuse of power by the State agencies and scrutiny
of the actions of the State.
18. Article 22 of the Constitution of India further
strengthens the protection of personal liberty of a
person by providing that a person arrested must be
informed of the grounds of his arrest at the earliest
and should not be detained without informing him of
such grounds. Article 22 reads as follow:
“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.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in
custody shall be produced before the nearest
magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of
such arrest excluding the time necessary for the
journey from the place of arrest to the court of the
magistrate and no such person shall be detained in
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 13 of 52
custody beyond the said period without the
authority of a magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—
(a) to any person who for the time being is an
enemy alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained
under any law providing for preventive detention.
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall
authorise the detention of a person for a longer
period than three months unless—
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who
are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed
as, Judges of a High Court has reported before
the expiration of the said period of three months
that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for
such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall
authorise the detention of any person beyond the
maximum period prescribed by any law made by
Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with
the provisions of any law made by Parliament
under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an
order made under any law providing for preventive
detention, the authority making the order shall, as
soon as may be, communicate to such person the
grounds on which the order has been made and
shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making
a representation against the order.
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority
making any such order as is referred to in that
clause to disclose facts which such authority
considers to be against the public interest to
disclose.
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe—
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class
or classes of cases in which, a person may be
detained for a period longer than three months
under any law providing for preventive detention
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 14 of 52
without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory
Board in accordance with the provisions of subclause
(a) of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person
may in any class or classes of cases be detained
under any law providing for preventive detention;
and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory
Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of
clause (4).”
19. The Constitutional safeguard provided under Article
22 of the Constitution of India has been effectuated
by the legislature by incorporating Section 50 of CrPC
1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) which puts into
force the procedural mandate providing for the
protection of the personal liberty of the person so
arrested. Section 47 of BNSS 2023 casts a duty on
the police officer or other person arresting any person
without a warrant shall communicate him the
grounds of arrest, which is reproduced herein below:
“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 nonbailable
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.”
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 15 of 52
20. Section 50A of the CrPC 1973 now Section 48 of
BNSS 2023 was further added to extend the scope of
such protection by casting a duty upon the person
arresting to inform such grounds of arrest to his
friend, relative or any other person nominated by
arrested person. Section 48 of BNSS 2023 reads as
follows:
“48. Obligation of person making arrest to
inform about arrest, etc., to relative or friend.–
– (1) Every police officer or other person making any
arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the
information regarding such arrest and place where
the arrested person is being held to any of his
relatives, friends or such other persons as may be
disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for
the purpose of giving such information and also to
the designated police officer in the district.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person
of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is
brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed
of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book
to be kept in the police station in such form as the
State Government may, by rules, provide.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before
whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy
himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and
sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect
of such arrested person.”
21. After having discussed the constitutional mandate
and statutory provisions giving effect to the
constitutional mandate in Article 22 of the
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 16 of 52
Constitution of India, let us now consider the
jurisprudence developed by this Court with respect
to furnishing of grounds of arrest through its
decisions.
22. In Pankaj Bansal (supra), this Court while dealing
with the issue of furnishing grounds of arrest under
Section 19(1) of PMLA has underscored that Article
22(1) of the Constitution mandates that no arrested
person shall be detained without being informed of
the grounds of such arrest at the earliest
opportunity. The manner in which such grounds are
to be communicated must be efficacious and
substantive which must fulfil the essential objective
and mandate of the constitutional provisions. It was
further held that there exists no plausible
justification as to why a written copy of the grounds
of arrest ought not be provided to the arrestee as a
standard procedural requirement without any
exception.
23. This Court has reached the above conclusion based
on the proposition that mere oral communication of
such grounds, in the absence of any written
document, renders the compliance susceptible to
factual disputes which often result into conflicting
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 17 of 52
claims between the arrested person and the
investigating agency. This conflict results in
jeopardizing the integrity of the arrest process and
thereby giving an opportunity to the accused person
to claim an immediate release. This situation may be
obviated by furnishing the grounds of arrest in
writing. Apart from the practical difficulties,
furnishing grounds of arrest in writing also results
into effective compliance of the mandate provided
under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The
relevant portion of the decision in Pankaj Bansal
(supra) is reproduced herein:
“38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1)
of the Constitution provides, inter alia, 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. This being the fundamental
right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode
of conveying information of the grounds of arrest
must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the
intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45
PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19
thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that
unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder
are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to
grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the
provision are that, firstly, the court must be
satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public
Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
arrested person is not guilty of the offence and,
secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be
essential for the arrested person to be aware of the
grounds on which the authorised officer arrested
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 18 of 52
him/her under Section 19 and the basis for the
officer's “reason to believe” that he/she is guilty of
an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only
if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts
that he/she would be in a position to plead and
prove before the Special Court that there are
grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such
offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore,
communication of the grounds of arrest, as
mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher
purpose and must be given due importance.
xxx xxx xxx
42. That being so, there is no valid reason as to
why a copy of such written grounds of arrest should
not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter
of course and without exception. There are two
primary reasons as to why this would be the
advisable course of action to be followed as a matter
of principle. Firstly, in the event such grounds of
arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or
read by such person with nothing further and this
fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to
the word of the arrested person against the word of
the authorised officer as to whether or not there is
due and proper compliance in this regard. In the
case on hand, that is the situation insofar as Basant
Bansal is concerned. Though ED claims that
witnesses were present and certified that the
grounds of arrest were read out and explained to
him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did
not sign the document. Non-compliance in this
regard would entail release of the arrested person
straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji v. State
[(2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. Such a
precarious situation is easily avoided and the
consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by
furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as
recorded by the authorised officer in terms of
Section 19(1) PMLA, to the arrested person under
due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the
debatable ipse dixit of the authorised officer.
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 19 of 52
43. The second reason as to why this would be the
proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective
underlying such information being given to the
arrested person. Conveyance of this information is
not only to apprise the arrested person of why
he/she is being arrested but also to enable such
person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present
a case before the court under Section 45 to seek
release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard,
the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji v. State
[(2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1], are placed
on record and we find that the same run into as
many as six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded
in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and
Basant Bansal have not been produced before this
Court, but it was contended that they were
produced at the time of remand. However, as
already noted earlier, this did not serve the
intended purpose. Further, in the event their
grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would
be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or
Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they
had read or heard being read out for future recall so
as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who
has just been arrested would not be in a calm and
collected frame of mind and may be utterly
incapable of remembering the contents of the
grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her.
The very purpose of this constitutional and
statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by
permitting the authorities concerned to merely read
out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest,
irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due
compliance with the constitutional requirement
under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate
under Section 19(1) PMLA.
44. We may also note that the grounds of arrest
recorded by the authorised officer, in terms of
Section 19(1) PMLA, would be personal to the person
who is arrested and there should, ordinarily, be no
risk of sensitive material being divulged therefrom,
compromising the sanctity and integrity of the
investigation. In the event any such sensitive
material finds mention in such grounds of arrest
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 20 of 52
recorded by the authorised officer, it would always
be open to him to redact such sensitive portions in
the document and furnish the edited copy of the
grounds of arrest to the arrested person, so as to
safeguard the sanctity of the investigation.
45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning
and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory
mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the
arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold
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 decisions of the Delhi High Court
in Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India [2017 SCC
OnLine Del 12108] and the Bombay High Court
in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India
[2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9938 : (2017) 1 AIR Bom R
(Cri) 929], which hold to the contrary, do not lay
down the correct law. In the case on hand, the
admitted position is that ED's investigating officer
merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds
of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which
is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of
communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil
compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we have no
hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in
keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA.
Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine
conduct of ED in proceeding against the appellants,
by recording the second ECIR immediately after
they secured interim protection in relation to the first
ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of
arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of
the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to
the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial
custody, cannot be sustained.”
24. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), of which, one of us
was a member (B.R. Gavai, J., as he then was), this
Court reiterated the principle laid down in the above
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 21 of 52
judgment, while dealing with offences under UAPA
and held that any individual arrested for alleged
commission of offences under the UAPA or any other
offence for that matter, has both a fundamental and
a statutory right to be informed in writing such
grounds of arrest. The Court further held that a copy
of such written grounds must be furnished to the
arrested person at the earliest without any exception
observing that the communication provided under
Article 22 and Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section
47 of BNSS 2023) is not a mere procedural formality
but a vital safeguard with the ultimate objective to
enable the arrested person to effectively consult legal
aid and be prepared to raise objections in remand
hearing and apply for his/her bail. The right to life
and personal liberty, safeguarded under Articles 20,
21 and 22 of the Constitution, stands as the
paramount fundamental right. Accordingly,
infringement of these constitutional protections
commands rigorous judicial scrutiny and strict
enforcement.
25. It was said that any breach of the constitutional
safeguards provided under Article 22 would vitiate
the lawfulness of arrest and subsequent remand and
entitle the arrested person to be set at liberty. The
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 22 of 52
relevant portion in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) is
reproduced herein:
“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.
20. The right to life and personal liberty is the most
sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under
Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental
right has been frowned upon by this Court in a
catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to
the following observations made by this Court
in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [(2000) 8 SCC 590 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 42] : (SCC p. 593, para 7)
‘7. The life and liberty of an individual is so
sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be
interfered with except under the authority of law.
It is a principle which has been recognised and
applied in all civilised countries. In our
Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of
life and personal liberty not only to citizens of
India but also to aliens.’
Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental
right, guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with
strictly.
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 23 of 52
21. The right to be informed about the grounds of
arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and any infringement of this fundamental
right would vitiate the process of arrest and
remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been
filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality
and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of
arresting the accused and the grant of initial police
custody remand to the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the
communication of the grounds is exactly the
identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions
require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”,
as the case may be, must be communicated in
writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet
of the fundamental right as made by the
Constitution Bench while examining the scope of
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso
facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India insofar as the requirement to communicate the
grounds of arrest is concerned.
29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that
the requirement to communicate the grounds of
arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a
person arrested in connection with an offence or a
person placed under preventive detention as
provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the
Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be
breached under any situation. Non-compliance of
this constitutional requirement and statutory
mandate would lead to the custody or the detention
being rendered illegal, as the case may be.”
26. Subsequently, in Vihaan Kumar (supra), this Court
underscored that a failure to comply with the
requirement of informing the grounds of arrest soon
after the arrest would render the arrest illegal. The
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 24 of 52
Court referred to the above-mentioned decisions of
this Court and observed that although the ideal mode
of communication of grounds of arrest is to provide
such grounds in writing, there is no such statutory
requirement to provide such grounds in writing. The
Court noted that it may not be practical to
communicate grounds of arrest in writing in every
situation, but if such a course is followed, the
controversy about non-compliance will not arise at
all.
27. It was further observed that to ensure the effective
implementation of the constitutional mandate in
Article 22, the law further requires such grounds to
be effectively communicated not only to the
detainee/arrestee but also to their friends, relatives
or any other nominated person as envisaged in
Section 50A of CrPC 1973 (now Section 48 of BNSS
2023). The legislative intent behind the incorporation
of Section 50A of CrPC 1973 is to ensure that those
in a position to act, i.e. secure legal representation,
initiate the process for bail, are empowered to do so
without any delay, thereby safeguarding the
fundamental rights of the arrested person as
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 25 of 52
The relevant portion of Vihaan Kumar (supra) is
reproduced herein:
“11. The view taken in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of
India [(2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450]
was reiterated by this Court in Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC
254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573]. In paras 28 and 29,
this Court held thus: (Prabir Purkayastha case, SCC
p. 278)
‘28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the
communication of the grounds is exactly the
identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions
require that the ‘grounds’ of ‘arrest’ or ‘detention’,
as the case may be, must be communicated in
writing. Thus, interpretation to this important
facet of the fundamental right as made by the
Constitution Bench while examining the scope of
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would
ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India insofar as the requirement to
communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.
29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating
that the requirement to communicate the grounds
of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to
a person arrested in connection with an offence
or a person placed under preventive detention as
provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the
Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be
breached under any situation. Non-compliance of
this constitutional requirement and statutory
mandate would lead to the custody or the
detention being rendered illegal, as the case may
be.’
(emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
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
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 26 of 52
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.
xxx xxx xxx
N. Kotiswar Singh, J. (supplementing)— I had the
benefit of going through the draft opinion of my
esteemed Brother Hon'ble Mr Justice Abhay S. Oka
and I concur with the analysis and conclusions
arrived at. However, I wish to add a few lines in
supplement to the aforesaid opinion.
2. The issue on the requirement of communication
of grounds of arrest to the person arrested, as
mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India, which has also been incorporated in the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under
Section 19 thereof has been succinctly reiterated in
this judgment. The constitutional mandate of
informing the grounds of arrest to the person
arrested in writing has been explained in Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024)
3 SCC (Cri) 450] so as to be meaningful to serve the
intended purpose which has been reiterated
in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024)
8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573]. The said
constitutional mandate has been incorporated in the
statute under Section 50CrPC (Section 47 of the
BNSS). It may also be noted that the aforesaid
provision of requirement for communicating the
grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also required
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 27 of 52
to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such
other persons of the accused as may be disclosed
or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose
of giving such information as provided under
Section 50-ACrPC. As may be noted, this is in the
addition of the requirement as provided under
Section 50(1)CrPC.
3. The purpose of inserting Section 50-ACrPC,
making it obligatory on the person making arrest to
inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or
persons nominated by the arrested person, is to
ensure that they would be able to take immediate
and prompt actions to secure the release of the
arrested person as permissible under the law. The
arrested person, because of his detention, may not
have immediate and easy access to the legal
process for securing his release, which would
otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and
such nominated persons by way of engaging
lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the
detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore,
the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest
to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as
mentioned above is not merely a formality but to
enable the detained person to know the reasons for
his arrest but also to provide the necessary
opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or
nominated persons to secure his release at the
earliest possible opportunity for actualising the
fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the
requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest
in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also
to the friends, relatives or such other person as may
be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person,
so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution meaningful and effective failing which,
such arrest may be rendered illegal.”
28. Before we delve into analysing the provisions of law
and jurisprudential developments by this Court, we
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 28 of 52
find it quintessential to discuss the impact of arrest
on an individual. The arrest of an individual
invariably impacts not only the person arrested
himself, but also the persons associated with him, i.e.
family, friends, relatives, etc., affecting their
psychological balance and overall social well-being.
This Court has on several occasions underscored that
there is a stigma attached to arrest which impairs the
reputation and the standing of an individual in
society. The stigma attached to arrest undermines a
person’s social dignity and results into consequences
that reverberate beyond the individual but also
extend to their social circle.
29. The impacts of arrest are multidimensional and are
not only limited to societal impact but also extend to
the physical and mental health of the person. Mental
health issues like depression due to custodial
confinement can be aggravated by inadequate and
overcrowded conditions prevalent in prisons. Such
conditions severely impinge upon the fundamental
rights of the arrested person and curtail his dignity
and personal liberty.
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 29 of 52
30. This Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and
Another4, observed that arrest results in
embarrassment, restricts freedom, and leaves
permanent scars. Lawmakers and the police are
aware of this. The police and lawmakers are at odds,
and it appears that the police have not learned the
lesson that is implied in and reflected in the CrPC
1973 (now BNSS 2023). Despite long years of
independence, it still maintains its colonial image
and is primarily viewed as an instrument of
oppression and harassment, and it is undoubtedly
not regarded as a friend of the public.
31. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others5,
this Court while framing guidelines regarding the
rights of an arrested person has observed that the
existence of a power to arrest and the justification to
use such power are two different aspects. The person
making arrest must be able to justify the arrest with
reasons apart from his power to do so. Arrest of a
person can cause irreversible damage to his
reputation in the society as well as his self-esteem,
therefore, arrest cannot be made in a routine
manner. The Police Officer making an arrest must be
4 (2014) 8 SCC 273 : AIR 2014 SC 2756
5 (1994) 4 SCC 260
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 30 of 52
cautious while arresting a person and ought to satisfy
himself after a reasonable investigation to justify the
person’s complicity and also the effect as well as the
need of arrest. This Court has further observed that
except in heinous offences, arrest must be avoided.
32. Having perused the jurisprudential developments
and impact of arrest on a person, let us now consider
the issues at hand.
33. The mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India is unambiguous and clear in
nature, it provides that the arrested person must be
informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as they can
be. It further provides that the arrested person has
the right to defend himself by consulting a legal
practitioner of his choice. This constitutional
mandate has been effectuated by the legislature in
Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS
2023) which provides that an arrested person shall
be forthwith communicated with the grounds of his
arrest.
34. The objective enshrined in Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India for furnishing grounds of arrest
stems from the fundamental principle of providing
opportunity to a person to allow him to defend
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 31 of 52
himself from the accusations that are levelled against
him leading to his arrest. The salutary purpose of
informing the grounds of arrest is to enable the
person to understand the basis of his arrest and
engage legal counsel to challenge his arrest, remand
or seek bail and/or avail of any other remedy as may
be available to him/her under law.
35. It is pertinent to note that the arrested person must
be given early access to legal assistance to enable him
to defend himself and oppose the remand. The early
access to legal counsel becomes a quintessential
object to ensure that the personal liberty of the
arrested person is protected. This Court in Suhas
Chakma v. Union of India and Others6 while
emphasizing on the need of pre-litigation assistance
has directed that the “Guidelines on Early Access to
Justice at Pre-arrest, Arrest and Remand Stage
Framework” as framed by the National Legal Services
Authority, are to be diligently pursued. The
guidelines provide for legal assistance to the arrested
person at the stage before remand. The remand
advocate shall interact with the arrestee with the
objective to inform him about the allegations against
6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3031
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 32 of 52
him and the grounds being put by the prosecution for
seeking remand. The guidelines also provide for
making available the translated copy of documents to
the arrested person in the language he/she
understands. The purpose of securing legal
assistance before remand is not merely symbolic, but
it is to ensure that the accused is afforded an effective
opportunity to oppose the prayer for police custody
and to place before the magistrate any circumstances
that may warrant refusal or limitation of such
custody. If the accused is not represented through a
Counsel, he/she should be made aware that he/she
is entitled for legal aid. As far as possible, it shall be
ensured that every accused person is represented by
an advocate, if he is not able to avail such assistance,
he should be given free legal aid. A three-judge Bench
of this Court in Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh7
held that an accused who is not represented by an
advocate is entitled for free legal aid at all material
stages starting from remand.
36. This statutory safeguard of legal assistance stands
also reinforced by Section 38 of the BNSS 2023,
which confers upon an arrested person the right to
7 (2025) 2 SCC 381 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3580
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 33 of 52
meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation,
albeit not throughout its course. The object of this
provision is to ensure meaningful access to legal
assistance at the earliest stage, so that the advocate,
once informed, may effectively exercise the rights
available in law, including representation during
remand proceedings and invocation of the right to
seek bail.
37. Section 167 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 187 of BNSS
2023) while dealing with remand provides for a
positive mandate on the police officer to forward the
accused to the magistrate before expiry of such
period as fixed under Section 57 CrPC 1973 (now
Section 58 of BNSS 2023) when investigation cannot
be completed in twenty-four hours. It further
mandates that the magistrate to not authorize the
detention of accused unless he is physically produced
before him. The purpose of this provision mandating
the production of accused before magistrate for
exercise of the power of remanding him to custody
under this section is with the dual purpose. First,
ensuring physical presence of the accused and
second to afford him an opportunity to be heard. The
intent of this provision is not merely to be heard at
the stage of remand but to be represented by the
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 34 of 52
counsel of his choice. Thereafter, the duty is cast
upon the magistrate to apply his judicial mind to the
material produced before him, hear the accused or
the counsel representing him to determine whether
the accused should be remanded to police custody or
should be detained at all within the parameters
prescribed in Section 167 of CrPC 1973 (Section 187
of BNSS 2023). The magistrate is not acting as a post
office simply putting a stamp of approval to the
remand papers as presented before him. In
Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and
Others8 this Court held that it is obligatory on the
part of the magistrate to satisfy himself whether the
materials placed before him justify such a remand.
38. These above discussed principles embody the
manifestation of the constitutional safeguard sought
to be achieved in Article 22 of the Constitution of
India which is that the arrested person must be well
equipped with the information not only about his
arrest but the reasons and grounds thereof prior to
his production before the magistrate so as to enable
him to effectively defend himself and oppose the
police and judicial custody and even press for bail.
8 (2013) 1 SCC 314
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 35 of 52
The obligation to inform the grounds of arrest to the
arrestee is thus, not just a mere procedural formality,
instead it flows from the fundamental right of
personal liberty which sets the further course for
protection from the oppressive restrictions imposed
upon the free movement in the society of an arrestee
during remand.
39. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India shows that the intent of the constitution
makers while incorporating the provisions was not to
create any exceptional circumstances, instead it
reads as “No person who is arrested shall be detained
in custody without being informed, as soon as may be,
of the grounds for such arrest….”, it casts a
mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to
provide the arrested person with the grounds of such
arrest with the objective to enable that person to be
able to defend himself by consulting a legal
practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22
(1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has
made it explicit that the constitutional obligation
under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is
grounded in fundamental right of life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 36 of 52
therefore making it applicable to all offences
including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023).
40. The requirement of informing the arrested person the
grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere
formality but a mandatory binding constitutional
safeguard which has been included in part III of the
Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights.
Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his
arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the
violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing
his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest
illegal.
41. Another aspect, which flows from the above
discussion and merits consideration is the mode of
informing grounds of arrest to the arrested person to
effectively serve the intended purpose of Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India. This Court, as observed
above, had held that it would not be ideal to read out
the grounds of arrest to a person who is arrested, as
he may not be in the frame of mind to remember the
contents of grounds that are read out to him. The
Court underscored that if the authorities are
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 37 of 52
permitted to read out the grounds and claim
compliance with the constitutional and statutory
mandate, the very purpose of the constitutional
protection would be nugatory.
42. As mentioned above, it has been held while dealing
with the mode of communicating the grounds of
arrest so as to serve the intended purpose of the
constitutional mandate that the language used in
Article 22(1) and 22(5) regarding communication of
the grounds is identical and therefore the
interpretation of Article 22(5) shall ipso facto apply to
Article 22(1). The grounds of arrest must be furnished
in writing, in order to attend the true intended
purpose of Article 22(1). Reference at this stage may
be made to the Constitution Bench Judgment of this
Court in Harikisan (supra) wherein while dealing
with the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in
the context of the right of a detainee to be made aware
of the grounds of arrest, it has been held that the
same should be furnished in a language which he can
understand and in a script which he can read, if he
is a literate person. The relevant portion thereof reads
thus:
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 38 of 52
“7. It has not been found by the High Court that the
appellant knew enough English to understand the
grounds of his detention. The High Court has only
stated that ‘he has studied up to 7th Hindi
standard, which is equivalent to 3rd English
standard’. The High Court negatived the contention
raised on behalf of the appellant not on the ground
that the appellant knew enough English, to
understand the case against him, but on the
ground, as already indicated, that the service upon
him of the Order and grounds of detention in English
was enough communication to him to enable him to
make his representation. We must, therefore,
proceed on the assumption that the appellant did
not know enough English to understand the
grounds, contained in many paragraphs, as
indicated above, in order to be able effectively to
make his representation against the Order of
Detention. The learned Attorney-General has tried
to answer this contention in several ways. He has
first contended that when the Constitution speaks
of communicating the grounds of detention to the
detenue, it means communication in the official
language, which continues to be English; secondly,
the communication need not be in writing and the
translation and explanation in Hindi offered by the
Inspector of Police, while serving the Order of
Detention and the grounds would be enough
compliance with the requirements of the law and the
Constitution; and thirdly, that it was not necessary
in the circumstances of the case to supply the
grounds in Hindi. In our opinion, this was not
sufficient compliance in this case with the
requirements of the Constitution, as laid down in
clause (5) of Article 22. To a person, who is not
conversant with the English language, service of the
Order and the grounds of detention in English, with
their oral translation or explanation by the police
officer serving them does not fulfil the requirements
of the law. As has been explained by this Court in
the case of State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar
Vaidya [1951 SCC 43 : (1951) SCR 167] clause (5)
of Article 22 requires that the grounds of his
detention should be made available to the detenue
as soon as may be, and that the earliest opportunity
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 39 of 52
of making a representation against the Order
should also be afforded to him. In order that the
detenue should have that opportunity, it is not
sufficient that he has been physically delivered the
means of knowledge with which to make his
representation. In order that the detenue should be
in a position effectively to make his representation
against the Order, he should have knowledge of the
grounds of detention, which are in the nature of the
charge against him setting out the kinds of
prejudicial acts which the authorities attribute to
him. Communication, in this context, must,
therefore, mean imparting to the detenue sufficient
knowledge of all the grounds on which the Order of
Detention is based. In this case the grounds are
several, and are based on numerous speeches said
to have been made by the appellant himself on
different occasions and different dates. Naturally,
therefore, any oral translation or explanation given
by the police officer serving those on the detenue
would not amount to communicating the grounds.
Communication, in this context, must mean bringing
home to the detenue effective knowledge of the facts
and circumstances on which the Order of Detention
is based.
8. We do not agree with the High Court in its
conclusion that in every case communication of the
grounds of detention in English, so long as it
continues to be the official language of the State, is
enough compliance with the requirements of the
Constitution. If the detained person is conversant
with the English language, he will naturally be in a
position to understand the gravamen of the charge
against him and the facts and circumstances on
which the order of detention is based. But to a
person who is not so conversant with the English
language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the
Constitution, the detenue must be given the grounds
in a language which he can understand, and in a
script which he can read, if he is a literate person.”
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 40 of 52
43. Further, the above judgment has been reiterated and
followed by this Court in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel
v. Union of India and Others9 where it has been
reaffirmed that grounds of detention must be
communicated to the detenu in writing in a language
which he understands.
44. On perusal of the above two judgments, it turns out
that mere communication of the grounds in a
language not understood by the person arrested does
not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22
of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply
such grounds in a language understood by the
arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards
illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the
person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India. The objective of the
constitutional mandate is to place the person in a
position to comprehend the basis of the allegations
levelled against him and it can only be realised when
the grounds are furnished in a language understood
by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise his
rights effectively.
9 (1981) 2 SCC 427
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 41 of 52
45. From the catena of decisions discussed above, the
legal position which emerges is that the
constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India is not a mere procedural
formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form
of fundamental rights. The intent and purpose of the
constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested
person to defend himself. If the provisions of Article
22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended
purpose of securing personal liberty would not be
achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse. The
mode of communicating the grounds of arrest must
be such that it effectively serves the intended purpose
as envisioned under the Constitution of India which
is to enable the arrested person to get legal counsel,
oppose the remand and effectively defend himself by
exercising his rights and safeguards as provided in
law. The grounds of arrest must be provided to the
arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge
of facts constituting grounds is imparted and
communicated to the arrested person effectively in a
language which he/she understands. The mode of
communication ought to be such that it must achieve
the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguard.
The objective of the constitutional mandate would not
be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 42 of 52
arrested person, such an approach would be
antithesis to the purpose of Article 22(1). There is no
harm in providing the grounds of arrest in writing in
the language the arrestee understands, this
approach would not only fulfil the true intent of the
constitutional mandate but will also be beneficial for
the investigating agency to prove that the grounds of
arrest were informed to the arrestee when a challenge
is made to the arrest on the plea of non-furnishing of
the grounds of arrest.
46. This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the
intended objective of the constitutional mandate of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds
of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in
each and every case without exception and the mode
of the communication of such grounds must be in
writing in the language he understands.
47. It would not be out of context now to refer to an
obligation which has been imposed on a person
making arrest, as provided under Section 50A read
in relation to Section 50 of the CrPC 1973 (now
Section 48 and 47 of BNSS 2023 respectively), to
inform the arrestee of his right to indicate his relative,
friend or such other person for the purpose of giving
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 43 of 52
information with regard to his arrest.
Simultaneously, a duty has also been cast on the
person making arrest to forthwith thereafter inform
of such arrest with reasons and the place where the
arrested person is being held to the such indicated
person. The police officer/person making any arrest
shall make an entry of the fact as to who has been
informed of such an arrest in a book to be kept in the
police station. Further protection in this regard is
reflected when a duty has been cast on the magistrate
to satisfy himself, when the arrestee is produced
before him, that the above requirement stands
complied with. This requirement is in addition to the
rights of an arrestee to be made aware of the grounds
of arrest.
48. The second issue which requires consideration is
when grounds of arrest are not furnished either prior
to arrest or immediately after the arrest, would it
vitiate the arrest for non-compliance of the provisions
of Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS
2023) irrespective of certain exigencies where
furnishing such grounds would not be possible
forthwith.
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 44 of 52
49. It is by now settled that if the grounds of arrest are
not furnished to the arrestee in writing, this noncompliance
will result in breach of the constitutional
and statutory safeguards hence rendering the arrest
and remand illegal and the person will be entitled to
be set at liberty. The statute is silent with regard to
the mode, nature or the time and stage at which the
grounds of arrest has to be communicated. Article 22
says ‘as soon as may be’ which would obviously not
mean prior to arrest but can be on arrest or
thereafter. The indication is as early as it can be
conveyed. There may be situations wherein it may not
be practically possible to supply such grounds of
arrest to the arrested person at the time of his arrest
or immediately.
50. It may so happen that in the presence of a police
officer a cognizable offence is being committed and
the factual matrix presents a tangible and imminent
risk of the suspect absconding or committing further
offence(s). For instance, in a case involving a murder
being committed in front of a police officer, it may not
be possible for the officer to provide the grounds of
arrest in writing before the arrest or forthwith on the
arrest to the accused. A rigid insistence upon
informing of written ground(s) of arrest before or at
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 45 of 52
the time of effecting the arrest or immediately
thereafter may result into police officer not being able
to discharge their duty and responsibility efficiently
and effectively. The constitutional safeguards,
valuable as they are, cannot be interpreted in a
manner so as to allow it to metamorphose into a
procedural impediment that handicaps the law
enforcing agencies in due lawful discharge of their
duties. Therefore, a balance between compliance of
the constitutional as also the statutorily mandated
safeguards on the one hand vis-a-vis the effective
discharge of lawful statutory law enforcement duties
and responsibilities cast upon the State agencies
must be struck.
51. Supplanting the above situation, there may be a case
wherein the Investigating Officer has sent a notice
for appearance of the accused to join the
investigation under Section 41A of CrPC 1973 (now
Section 35(3) to 35(6) of BNSS 2023) pursuant to
which the accused has joined the investigation. The
Investigating Officer, after perusal of material
available before him and/or on interrogating the
accused, makes up his mind that the arrest of the
accused person is required for further investigation
or has other reason(s) for arrest, in such cases, since
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 46 of 52
the accused is under the supervision of the
Investigating Agency and there exists no
apprehension of him absconding, it becomes
incumbent upon the Police Officer to supply the
grounds of arrest in writing on arresting the accused
person. This can also be followed, for instance, in
cases involving offences which are primarily based
on documentary evidence/records, economic
offences such as under PMLA where the grounds of
arrest in writing be furnished to the arrested person
on arrest simultaneously.
52. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are
already in possession of documentary material
furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written
grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee
on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances
such as offences against body or property committed
in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of
arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it
shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person
making the arrest to orally convey the same to the
person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of
grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested
person within a reasonable time and in no event later
than two hours prior to production of the arrestee
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 47 of 52
before the magistrate for remand proceedings. The
remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest
and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note
indicating a cause for it be included for the
information of the magistrate.
53. The above indicated lower limit of two hours
minimum interval before the production is grounded
in the functional necessity so that the right as
provided to an arrestee under the Constitution and
the statute is safeguarded effectively. This period
would ensure that the counsel has adequate time to
scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant
material to defend the arrestee proficiently and
capably while opposing the remand. Any shorter
interval may render such preparation illusory,
thereby resulting in non-compliance of the
constitutional and statutory mandate. The two-hour
threshold before production for remand thus strikes
a judicious balance between safeguarding the
arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1)
and preserving the operational continuity of criminal
investigations.
54. In view of the above, we hold with regard to the
second issue that non supply of grounds of arrest in
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 48 of 52
writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after
arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the grounds
of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50
of the CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023)
provided the said grounds are supplied in writing
within a reasonable time and in any case two hours
prior to the production of the arrestee before the
magistrate for remand proceedings.
55. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule
for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not
adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling
the release of the arrestee. On such release, an
application for remand or custody, if required, will be
moved along with the reasons and necessity for the
same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in
writing setting forth the explanation for non-supply
thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On
receipt of such an application, the magistrate shall
decide the same expeditiously and preferably within
a week of submission thereof by adhering to the
principles of natural justice.
56. In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the
arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all
offences under all statutes including offences
under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she
understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is
unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in
writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally.
The said grounds be communicated in writing
within a reasonable time and in any case at least
two hours prior to production of the arrestee for
remand proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest
and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal
and the person will be at liberty to be set free.
57. After having come to the above conclusion, it is
pertinent to note that the provision of law under
Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (Section 47 of BNSS 2023)
does not provide for a specific mode of or time frame
for communication of the grounds of arrest to the
person arrested. This Court in Prabir Purkayastha
(supra), held that the grounds of arrest be conveyed
to the arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest,
which means it need not be given at the time of arrest
but within a reasonable time thereafter, for offences
under all the statutes, which period would be as has
been laid down above in this order.
58. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or
binding requirement mandating written
communication of the grounds of arrest for all the
offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure
implementation of the constitutional rights provided
to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the
Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such
clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the
administration of criminal justice. The ends of
fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that
this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests
henceforth.
59. In Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025, while issuing
notice, this Court had clarified that the Court is not
inclined to entertain the petition on its merits, and
notice was issued only to settle the issues to bring
about clarity thereon, with that having been reached
the same stands disposed of.
60. As far as the Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2025 and
Criminal Appeal No. 2190 of 2025 are concerned, this
Court while granting leave on 22.04.2025 had by way
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 51 of 52
of ad interim relief directed the Appellants to be
released on bail during pendency of these Appeals,
the same shall continue. However, the prosecution
may move an application for remand or custody, if
required, along with the reasons and necessity for the
same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in
writing to the accused, before the magistrate if the
case has not been committed for trial and in case the
trial having commenced before the Trial Court as the
case may be.
61. The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
62. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
63. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8704 of 2025
was tagged with these Appeals and the Petitioner was
granted an ad interim relief directing his release on
bail vide Order dated 02.06.2025. Since there being
no update with regard to effecting of service upon the
Respondent nor any reply has been filed, the ad
interim relief shall continue, and the petition be listed
before an appropriate bench after obtaining the
orders on the administrative side from the Hon’ble
the Chief Justice of India.
64. We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive
assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae
and the learned Counsels for the parties to this
Court.
65. We direct the Registry to send one copy of this
judgment to all the Registrar Generals of the High
Courts and the Chief Secretaries of all the States and
Union Territories.
.……..………..……………………..CJI.
[ B.R. GAVAI ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 06, 2025.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment