Supreme Court: Court's Permission Needed To Arrest Accused For Offence Added After Grant Of Bail

 34. In such circumstances referred to above, we arrive at

following conclusions in respect of a circumstance whereafter

the grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and nonbailable

offences are added:-

(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly

added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In the event of

refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.

(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court

under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively for

arrest of the accused and his custody.

(iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections

437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for

taking into custody the accused who has already been granted

bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of

its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2)

respectively can direct the person who has already been

granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on

addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not

be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.

(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail,

the investigating authority on addition of an offence or

offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for

arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences

it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the

Court which had granted the bail.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.1536/2026)

SUMIT  Vs STATE OF U P & ANR. 

Coram: J.B.PARDIWALA & K.V.VISWANATHAN, J.J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 145.

Dated: 09TH FEBRUARY 2026

Print Page

Allahabad HC Issues Safeguards Against S. 498A Misuse : No Arrest During 2 Months' Cooling-Off Period After FIR Registration

Thus assesing the totality of the circumstances, object and the allegation of misuse of this piece of legislation in a shape of Section 498A IPC, the Court is proposing the safeguards after taking the guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (Supra) keeping in view the growing tendency in the masses to nail the husband and all family members by a general and sweeping allegations. {Para 48}

49. Thus, It is directed that:—

(i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the “Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committe(hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the each district.

(ii) Only those cases which would be transmitted to FWC in which Section 498-A IPC along with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which the imprisonment is less than 10 years.

(iii) After lodging of the complaint or the FIR, no action should take place without concluding the “Cooling-Period” of two months. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter may be referred to Family Welfare Committee in each districts.

(iv) Every district shall have at least one or more FWC (depending upon the geographical size and population of that district constituted under the District Legal Aid Services Authority) comprising of at least THREE MEMBERS. Its constitution and function shall be reviewed periodically by the District & Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court of that District, who shall be the Chairperson or Co-chairperson of that district at Legal Service Authority.

(v) The said FWC shall comprise of the following members:—

(a) a young mediator from the Mediation Centre of the district or young advocate having the practices up to five years or senior most student of Vth year, Government Law College or the State University or N.L.Us. having good academic track record and who is public spirited young man, OR;

(b) well acclaimed and recognized social worker of that district having clean antecedant, OR;

(c) retired judicial officers residing in or nearby district, who can devote time for the object of the proceeding OR;

(d) educated wives of senior judicial or administrative officers of the district.

(vi) The member of the FWC shall never be called as a witness.

(vii) Every complaint or application under Section 498A IPC and other allied sections mentioned above, be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committee by the concerned Magistrate. After receiving the said complaint or FIR, the Committee shall summon the contesting parties along with their four senior elderly persons to have personal interaction and would try to settle down the issue/misgivings between them within a period of two months from its lodging.

The contesting parties are obliged to appear before the Committee with their four elderly persons (maximum) to have a serious deliberation between them with the aid of members of the Committee.

(viii) The Committee after having proper deliberations, would prepare a vivid report and would refer to the concerned Magistrate/police authorties to whom such complaints are being lodged after expiry of two months by inserting all factual aspects and their opinion in the matter.

(ix) Continue deliberation before the Committee, the police officers shall themselves to avoid any arrest or any coercive action pursuant to the applications or complaint against the named accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer shall continue to have a peripheral investigation into the matter namely preparing a medical report, injury report, the statements of witnesses.

(x) The said report given by the Committee shall be under the consideration of I.O. or the Magistrate on its own merit and thereafter suitable action should be taken by them as per the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure after expiry of the “Cooling-Period” of two months.

(xi) Legal Services Aid Committee shall impart such basic training as may be considered necessary to the members of Family Welfare Committee from time to time(not more than one week).

(xii) Since, this is noble work to cure abrasions in the society where tempos of the contesting parties are very high that they would melow down the heat between them and try to resolve the misgivings and misunderstanding between them. Since, this is a job for public at large, social work, they are acting on a pro bono basis or basic minimum honrarium as fixed by the District & Sessions Judge of every district.

(xiii) The investigation of such FIRs or complaint containing Section 498A IPC and other allied sections as mentioned above, shall be investigated by dynamic Investigating Officers whose integrity is certified after specialized training not less than one week to handle and investigate such matrimonal cases with utmost sincerity and transparancy.

(xiv) When settlement is reached between the parties, it would be open for the District & Sessions Judge and other senior judicial officers nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case.

50. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that after lodging of the F.I.R. or the complaint case without exhausting the “Cooling-Period” of two months, no arrest or any coercive action shall be taken against the husband or his family members in order to derail the proceedings before the Family Welfare Committee.

 In the High Court of Allahabad

(Before Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

Criminal Revision No. - 1126 of 2022

Mukesh Bansal Vs  State of U.P. and Another 

Decided on June 13, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine All 395 : (2022) 4 All LJ 452 : (2022) 120 ACC 441 : 2022 Cri LJ 2841 : (2022) 3 HLR 399 : ILR (2022) 6 All 1112

Print Page

Supreme Court Endorses Allahabad HC Guidelines :No Arrest In 498A FIRs For 2 Months; Refer Cases To Family Welfare Committees

The guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before B.R. Gavai, C.J. and Augustine George Masih, J.)

Transfer Petition (C) No. 2367 of 2023

Shivangi Bansal  Vs  Sahib Bansal 

Decided on July 22, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1494.

Print Page

Supreme Court's Categorized Bail Guidelines: Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2021 and 2022)

 This Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2021) established crucial bail guidelines that streamline the bail process for different categories of offenses. Here's a simplified breakdown: 

Key Concept

The Supreme Court created a categorized approach to bail applications to reduce unnecessary litigation and provide clarity to lower courts. These guidelines apply only when specific conditions are met.

Print Page

Bombay High Court Declares Arrest Illegal For Failure To Produce Accused Within 24 Hours

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Division Bench) held that arrest begins when liberty is restrained, not when formally recorded. Since the Petitioner was not produced within 24 hours of being taken into custody, the arrest was declared illegal and violative of constitutional safeguards.The 'arrest" is complete when such restraint by an authority commences. The arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the person and not with the time of "arrest" recorded by the Arresting Officer.

31. In the case in hands, the journey of the Petitioner, in custody of the Police, from Palanpur to Ahmedabad to Mumbai, was followed with the Police team taking him to the office of the EOW where he was detained and shown to be arrested at 2.20 PM. There is no explanation as regards the transportation of the Petitioner, after medical examination, for an overnight stay in the lock-up, only to be produced in the Court of the Magistrate, at 1.15 PM, on 17.08.2024. In the light of the above facts, the violation of Article 22(2) is writ large. Section 58 does not contemplate the exclusion of the time required for such a journey, interjected with several events, while computing the time of 24 hrs.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025

Decided On: 27.06.2025

Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ.

Author: Jitendra Jain, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3610/2025.

Print Page

Gauhati HC: [S.187 BNSS] Status Of Hospitalised Arrestee Cannot Remain Unknown, Magistrate Must Verify Through Visit Or VC

Though, there is no dispute at the bar regarding the proposition of law, as mandated by Article 22 of the Constitution of India, that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest excluding the time taken for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court or the Magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without authority of a Magistrate, however, in the instant case, though the petitioner was arrested on 14.04.2025 (as apparent from the arrest memo of the petitioner available in the record), however, there is no order of remand either judicial or police neither the petitioner is released on bail. {Para 13}

14. It appears that the learned Magistrate has erred in not passing any order regarding production of the petitioner through video conferencing mode when such a prayer was made by the Investigating Officer on 15.04.2025 by simply allowing the Investigating Officer to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate as and when he is released from the hospital. Such an order without clarifying the status of the petitioner, as to whether he is in custody or a free person, when the arrest of the petitioner was reported to the said Magistrate stating the reasons for not producing him before such Magistrate, is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 57 of the BNSS as well as Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

15. It is settled constitutional position that an arrestee shall have to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours excluding the time required for his production before such Magistrate. There may be exceptions to such requirement, like in the instant case where the arrestee is injured and requires urgent medical care so that instead of producing such an arrestee before the Magistrate, he might have to be rushed to the hospital for providing urgent medical treatment. However, in such cases also the Magistrate may ascertain the condition of the arrestee through video conferencing or personally visiting such arrestee whose arrest has been reported to him by the Police. After the arrest of a person if he is not released on bail, an order for remand to judicial custody has to be made though it can be qualified by clarifying that the petitioner may continue to stay in the hospital after ascertaining such a requirement. For the said purpose, the Magistrate may also call for a report from the hospital where the arrestee has been admitted.

16. However, as Section 187 of BNSS categorically states that subject to condition of bail, the Magistrate may authorize his detention either in judicial or in police custody. Unless, such an order is passed, the initial arrest of the petitioner beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, would become illegal.

17. In this case, the petitioner has been admitted in hospital for last 45 day after the date of his arrest. Though, he is admitted in the hospital and it appears that his status is not of a free person but of an arrestee as he has not been granted bail in this case, however, no order under Section 187 BNSS was passed by the Magistrate. In absence of any order of remand beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since such non-production of the petitioner, even through video conferencing mode, beyond 24 hours in custody amounts to violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also violated and, on that count, the petitioner is entitled to go on bail.

 In the High Court of Gauhati

(Before Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)

Bittu Kumar  Vs  State of Assam 

Bail Appln./1662/2025

Decided on June 2, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2842,

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused Entitled To Bail If Arrest Was In Breach Of Sections 41, 41A CrPC

 b) The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

c) The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the Accused for grant of bail.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Miscellaneous Application No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 

 Satender Kumar Antil  Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Author: M.M. Sundresh, J.

Decided On: 11.07.2022

Citation: MANU/SC/0851/2022.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Constitutional Compliance Checklist for Magistrate Courts and Session Courts when Accused is Brought before them for Remand

MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (Before Considering Remand)

1. Article 22(1) Compliance Verification

- [ ] Verify if grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused

  - [ ] Check if grounds were provided in writing (not just orally)

  - [ ] Confirm grounds were provided "forthwith" (immediately) after arrest

  - [ ] Ensure grounds were communicated in language understood by accused

- [ ] Examine the arrest memo and related documents

Print Page

Illegal Arrest and Violation of Personal Liberty: Bombay High Court Orders Compensation and Inquiry, Upholding Individual Rights Against Arbitrary Police Actions"

 Thus, it is clearly evident that the police failed to comply with the provisions of the Cr. PC as well as the directions of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra), rendering the petitioner's arrest illegal. We find in the peculiar facts, that not only the police but even the learned Magistrate before whom the matter appeared had without any application of mind granted one day's police custody of the petitioner. It is the duty of every Magistrate, when an accused is produced before him/her, to ensure that the provisions of law have been duly complied with and whether police custody in those given facts, is warranted. We are afraid, that even the learned Magistrate failed in his duty to consider whether the arrest of the petitioner was justified having regard to the nature of allegations and Sections with which the petitioner was charged. The Magistrate failed to comply with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra). As per the direction, even the Magistrate concerned, shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court, for authorising detention without recording reasons. All that the Magistrate in his order dated 29th January 2020 granting one day's Police Custody Remand has observed, 'Perused remand application, FIR and case diary. The names of accused are reflected in FIR. The investigation is in progress. I am satisfied for the reasons mentioned in remand appln that presence of accused are required for further progress in investigation. Hence, all the accused are remanded to police custody till 30.01.2020.' Magistrates are not mute spectators, but are Courts of first instance, before whom the accused are produced. It is there bounden duty to uphold the law and protect the liberty of an individual from arbitrary arrest. In the present case, the petitioner had paid all his dues including the compounding charges and as such the petitioner's arrest was unwarranted and as such arbitrary. The aforesaid action of the police, resulted in mental agony to the petitioner since he was required to stay in police custody for one day despite having paid all dues of Adani Electricity including compounding charges. {Para 21}

22. In view of the aforesaid, we pass the following order:-

ORDER

(i) We direct the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) to the petitioner, within 6 weeks from today;

(ii) We direct the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to appoint an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, to conduct a departmental inquiry with respect to the arrest of the petitioner by the police officers of the R.C.F. Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai. The petitioner to be heard in the inquiry so conducted. The inquiry to be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order;

(iii) The compensation so paid, to be recovered, after a full- fledged inquiry, from the salary of the person/persons found responsible for the illegal detention of the petitioner;

(iv) A copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate who granted police custody of the petitioner.

23. The Petition is allowed and is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

24. Petition to be listed on 19th December 2024, for recording compliance of clauses (i) to (iii) of para 22 of the aforesaid Judgment and Order.

25. A copy of this Judgment and Order be placed before the Administrative Committee of this Court headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate steps against the Magistrate, having regard to para 11.8. of the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra).

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3898 of 2023

Decided On: 01.10.2024

Alex Vs. The State of Maharashtra's and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

Author: Revati Mohite Dere, J.

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:39450-DB,MANU/MH/6240/2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC’s larger bench to clear ‘total confusion’ on arrest procedure issues, need for communicating grounds of arrest in writing

 Based on the above discussion, in our opinion the proper course for us is to refer these important questions for consideration to a Larger Bench. The questions are formulated as follows:

(1) Whether the ratio of the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate5, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)6, are applicable to Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and involving the offences under the other statutes than the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?

(2) Whether Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mandates the furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused?

(3) If it is held that the communication of grounds of arrest in writing is necessary under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Code, 1973, then

(i) Whether it has to be furnished at the time of arrest or any time before consideration of the first remand application?

(ii) Whether the court has discretion to consider such necessity depending on the gravity of the offence or circumstances in which the accused is arrested?

(iii) Whether, in the given cases, the court can consider the prejudice caused to the accused for not furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing?

(iv) Before which forum the arrested person can raise his grievance for his release on this ground? Whether it can be Magistrate's Court granting remand, Sessions Court, Single Judge of this Court exercising jurisdiction in bail matters or before the Division Bench exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

(v) For implementation of this mandate, what should be the cut-off date? Whether it should be from the date of the decision in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India4 or from the date of decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)6 or from the date of decision in Mahesh Pandurang Naik v. State of Maharashtra7.

(4) If it is held that oral communication under Section 50 CrPC is sufficient, then whether it can be communicated within 24 hours of the arrest or at the time of first Remand or it has to be at the time of arrest.

(5) If a person is released for non-compliance of Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, can he be arrested again after following due procedure after his release?

(6) Whether the notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is required to be given before arrest in all cases and in particular in the cases where the offence is punishable up to seven years, when the arrest of an accused is necessary? {Para 66}

67. Apart from these questions formulated for consideration of a Larger Bench, we are of the opinion that some clear and definite guidelines are required to be issued to the courts of Magistrates and to the investigating agencies to follow the procedure of giving a remand report sufficiently in advance to the arrested accused before his first remand application is considered by the appropriate Court.

68. The registry is directed to place this order before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for consideration for placing it before a Larger Bench consisting of three or more Judges. The Registry shall take such steps at the earliest considering that the issue raised in these petitions is in respect of alleged illegal detention of large number of arrested accused.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Sarang V. Kotwal and S.M. Modak, JJ.)

Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 24338 of 2024

Vicky Bharat Kalyani Vs   State of Maharashtra and Another 

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 193,2025:BHC-AS:4688

Dated: January 31, 2025

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Print Page

LLM Notes: Judgment of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal in 10 Bullet Points

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal(1997)

 1. Case Background: The case originated from a letter written by D.K. Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, to the Chief Justice of India on August 26, 1986. The letter highlighted incidents of custodial deaths and torture, which the Supreme Court treated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

1. Key Constitutional Provisions: The case revolved around fundamental rights under Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and 22(1) (Rights of Arrested Persons), emphasizing that custodial violence violates these rights.

2. Guidelines Issued by the Court: The Supreme Court laid down 11 guidelines to prevent custodial violence, including mandatory recording of arrests, timely medical examinations, and informing detainees' family members about the arrest.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Custodial Violence and Legal Safeguards in India

 Custodial violence, a grave violation of human rights, involves torture and violence inflicted upon individuals in police or judicial custody. The Law Commission of India defines it as a crime perpetrated by a public servant against an arrested or detained person. This abuse of power often results in death or severe trauma for the victim, encompassing illegal detention, wrongful arrest, humiliation, extortion, and physical, mental, and sexual violence. It is important to note that "custodial violence" is not explicitly defined under any specific law.

 Types of Custodial Violence

Authorities may resort to various forms of violence depending on the circumstances, often with the aim of extracting information or abusing their authority:

Print Page

Bombay HC: Police can not arrest accused unless requirement of S 41A(3) Cr.P.C is satisfied

 The arrest on 23.12.2022 was not on the basis of any additional material discovered in the course of the investigation, but was based on the same material which was within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer at the time of issuance of notice under Section 41A. Such routine arrest without application of mind and due regard to the law amounts to an abuse of power and does not satisfy the requirement of Section 41A(3) Cr.P.C.

{Para 30}

31. To sum up, the Investigating agency has not been able to demonstrate existence of circumstances or supportive material on the basis of which the decision to arrest was taken. Absence of

such circumstances, information or material which is the sine qua non for the decision of arrest reduces the provision a dead letter and renders the arrest illegal.

33. Under the circumstances, and for the reasons supra, the arrest  of the petitioners is held to be illegal for breach of mandatory provision under Section 41A Cr.P.C. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2023

Chanda Kochhar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, & N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 6th FEBRUARY, 2024.

Print Page

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments of the year 2024 On Bail (Part 1)

 1) Supreme Court: Can't Deny Benefit Of First Proviso To S.45 PMLA Merely Because A Woman Is Well-Educated Or An MP/MLA

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

[Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024]

KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA Vs  DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 632.

Dated: AUGUST 27, 2024.

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/supreme-court-cant-deny-benefit-of.html

2) Supreme Court directs all courts to append a coversheet to judgment informing the convict about availability of free legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies while furnishing copy of judgment of conviction/dismissal/reversal of acquittal/dismissal of bail applications

Print Page

What is distinction between reasons of arrest and “grounds of arrest”?

So far as ground being communicated through the

remand application is concerned, the law in this regard is now

well settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prabir

Purkayastha V/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934

 has elaborately  considered this issue and in para 49 of the said decision, the distinction between the “reasons of arrest” and “grounds of arrest” have been culled out, which reads thus :

“49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that

there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons

for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for

arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely

formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person

from committing any further offence; for proper

investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused

person from causing the evidence of the offence to

disappear or tempering with such evidence in any

manner; to prevent the arrested person for making

inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the

Investigating Offcer. These reasons would commonly

apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime

whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to

contain all such details in hand of the Investigating

Offcer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.

Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in

writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic

facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide

him an opportunity of defending himself against

custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of

arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and

cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are

general in nature.”

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.17029 OF 2024

Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

 MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

 DATED : 23rd OCTOBER, 2024

Order : (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.):-

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC declares arrest illegal as grounds of arrest were communicated to accused’s wife but not to the accused

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as the learned APP for the State and after going through

the reply affidavit and the documents annexed with the reply

affidavit, we do not find any grounds of arrest being

communicated to the petitioner. From the arrest panchanama

it is evident that, information is given to his wife on the cell

number provided by him, apart from which, there are no

grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest surrender form. 

{Para 6}

7. It is the requirement of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. that an

accused, who is being arrested without warrant to be forthwith

communicated about the full particulars of the offence for

which he is arrested or the other grounds for such arrest. The

petitioner has alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the

Cr.P.C. as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, by

relying upon law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard.

Therefore, it is a specific contention of the petitioner that,

there is a violation of his constitutional as well as statutory

rights.

8. After considering the submissions as well as the

documents produced on record, we do not find grounds of

arrest being communicated to the petitioner as contemplated

by Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and explained by this Court as well

as the Hon’ble Apex Court in its various judicial

pronouncements. We are satisfied that there is a flagrant

violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Article 22(1) of

the constitution of India, and since the grounds of arrest are

not communicated to the petitioner, making his arrest illegal.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.17029 OF 2024

Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

 MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

 DATED : 23rd OCTOBER, 2024

Order : (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.):-

Print Page

Kerala HC: Whether the Bail Court has jurisdiction to pass orders restraining the Police from arresting accused without passing interim bail orders?

The third referred issue in B.A. No. 4421/2022 (which is the 4th issue mentioned supra) is as to whether the Bail Court has jurisdiction to pass orders restraining the Police from arresting the accused without passing interim bail orders as per Sec.438(1) of the Cr.P.C. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in para 52, more particularly, para 52.14, of Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT, Delhi) & Anr. [MANU/SC/1538/2019 : (2020) 5 SCC 1, p.86] and paras 40 & 41 of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [MANU/SC/0215/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 565, pp. 590-591], it is not right and legally correct for an Anticipatory Bail Court to pass orders or interim orders restraining the arrest of the accused or directing not to arrest the accused, etc. However, as categorically held in para 42 of Gurbaksh Singh's case supra [MANU/SC/0215/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 565, p.591] and various other decisions, the Anticipatory Bail Court, in appropriate cases, will have the discretionary power to issue interim bail order/ad-interim bail order if the Court is convinced that it is so warranted, pending consideration of the main bail application. But, while considering passing of such interim bail orders, the Court should ensure strict conformity with the requirements of Sec.438. The last referred issue in B.A. No. 4421/2022 will also, thus, stand answered.

{Para 109}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl. Nos. 4421 and 4983 of 2022

Decided On: 11.04.2023

Anu Mathew Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Alexander Thomas and C.S. Sudha, JJ.

Author: Alexander Thomas, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/0926/2023.

Read full Judgment here:  Click here.

Print Page

Whether High Court under revisional jurisdiction should suspend the sentence of accused without his surrender or arrest?

15. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows:

16. Though the High Court would not be justified in refusing to entertain the revision in the absence of the Rules for regulating listing of the revisions without surrender, it has powers to simultaneously ensure compliance with the provisions of Sections 353(5), 353(6) and Section 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under its inherent powers contained in Section 482 and in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. P.C., and may suspend the sentence without the surrender or arrest of the accused, in its discretion.

 In the High Court of Bombay( Aurangabad Bench)

(Before Mangesh S. Patil and S.G. Chapalgaonkar, JJ.)

Criminal Revision Application No. 301 of 2022

Ikba and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others 

Decided on January 5, 2024, 

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 43.

Print Page

Whether police can say that accused is not co-operating if he is exercising his right to remain silent?

 It is relevant to note that though it is within the powers of the

Investigating Agency to interrogate, the accused has a right to

remain silent. The right to silence emanates from Article 20(3) of

the Indian Constitution, which gives an accused the right against

self incrimination. Suffice it to say that exercise of the right to

remain silent cannot be equated with non co-operation. {Para 29}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2023 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 804 OF 2023

Chanda Kochhar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, &

N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 6th FEBRUARY, 2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: It is duty of the court to ensure that subjective satisfaction of investigating officer for arrest of accused is on factual basis and not on the basis of his whims or caprice

   There can be no dispute that it is within the domain of the Investigating Agency to interrogate the accused and to arrive at a subjective satisfaction on the issue of arrest. We are conscious and mindful that the satisfaction of the investigating agency is

subjective in nature and the Court cannot go into the reasonableness

of the reasons of arrest and or substitute its objective opinion for

the subjective satisfaction. Nevertheless, the subjective satisfaction is not wholly immune from judicial reviewability. The Court can consider whether the reasons for deprivation of liberty are rational, reasonable or fanciful. In Barium Chemicals Ltd vs. Company law Board the Apex Court with reference to Section 237 of the Companies Act has observed that the Court cannot go into the question of aptness or sufficiency of the grounds upon which the subjective satisfaction of an authority is based. However, the entire process is not subjective. While the existence of relevant

material/information is objective, whereas drawing inference

therefrom alone is a subjective process. Only check upon the

subjective power is the existence of circumstances/material

information. In case it is established that there was no material

information or factual basis, the exercise of power becomes illegal. It is thus within the powers of the Court to ensure that the subjective satisfaction is on factual basis and not on the basis of the whims or caprice of the investigating agency. {Para 27}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2023 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 804 OF 2023

Chanda Kochhar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, &

N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 6th FEBRUARY, 2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page