Case Background

The case arose from a 2024 hit-and-run incident in Mumbai, in which a BMW driven by Mihir Rajesh Shah fatally struck a scooter. After absconding, Shah was arrested without being provided written grounds of arrest. He challenged the legality of his arrest before the Bombay High Court, arguing a violation of Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS. The High Court acknowledged procedural lapse but upheld the arrest’s validity. Shah appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Questions

1. Whether furnishing written grounds of arrest is mandatory in all cases, including those under the Indian Penal Code (now BNS 2023).

2. Whether an arrest becomes illegal if written grounds are not immediately provided due to exigent circumstances.

Arguments

• Appellant’s case: The arrest without written grounds violated Article 21 and 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS. Reliance was placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024), Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi, 2024), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), where the Court held that written communication of arrest grounds was necessary to ensure meaningful compliance with Article 22(1).

• State’s contention: The law requires informing the arrestee of the grounds but does not prescribe the mode (oral or written).

• Amicus Curiae: Stated that while communication of grounds is mandatory, written communication is not always explicitly required unless under special laws like UAPA or PMLA.

Court’s Analysis

Justice Augustine George Masih, writing for the Bench, examined:

• The constitutional and statutory foundation of the right to know arrest grounds (Articles 21 and 22; Sections 47 & 48 BNSS).

• Judicial precedents (Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar) emphasizing that oral communication can lead to disputes and undermine due process.

• The purpose of this safeguard: to enable the accused to seek legal counsel, challenge remand, and apply for bail effectively.

• The impact of arrest on personal liberty, dignity, and mental health, stressing that arrest should not be routine and must respect constitutional rights.

Key Findings

1. Mandatory communication: Grounds of arrest must be communicated in every case, regardless of the statute under which the arrest is made.

2. Written form preferred: To fulfill Article 22(1)’s intent, the grounds should be furnished in writing and in a language understood by the arrestee. Merely reading them out is insufficient.

3. Timeframe: Written grounds must be supplied at the time of arrest or as soon as possible thereafter, and at least two hours before production before the magistrate.

4. Exigent exceptions: In rare cases, such as arrest during the commission of a crime or when immediate action is needed, oral communication may suffice initially, but written grounds must follow within a reasonable period.

5. Effect of non-compliance: Failure to furnish written grounds violates Article 21 and 22(1), rendering the arrest and remand illegal, entitling the person to release.

Conclusion

The Court held that communication of arrest grounds is a fundamental, non-negotiable constitutional right. While exigencies may justify brief delay, written communication is mandatory before remand. The judgment harmonizes the protection of individual liberty with the operational needs of law enforcement, establishing a two-hour rule before remand as the minimum safeguard.

Significance:

This landmark decision extends the Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha rulings beyond special statutes to all criminal cases under BNS/IPC, reinforcing procedural fairness and the right to liberty as cornerstones of due process in India.