Pranav B Prem

The Bombay High Court has ruled that conveying the grounds of arrest within four minutes of an individual's arrest is reasonable and does not violate the accused’s fundamental rights. The decision was pronounced by a single-judge bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale in the case of Gunwant Tarachand Jain @ Nikesh Madhani vs. State of Maharashtra.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, accused in a rape case, challenged his arrest on the ground that he was not provided with the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of his arrest. He contended that the delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest violated his fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was arrested on November 21, 2024, at 22:56 hours, and the grounds of arrest were served on him in writing at 23:00 hours—four minutes later. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Andheri, had earlier ruled that the four-minute delay in serving the grounds of arrest violated the fundamental rights of the accused. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the JMFC ordered the immediate release of the accused. However, this order was challenged by the State before the Dindoshi Sessions Court.

Sessions Court's Reversal

On December 24, 2024, the Sessions Court set aside the JMFC’s order, ruling that the four-minute gap was within the limits of ‘reasonable time.’ The court noted the timeline of the arrest and perused the arrest memo, station diary entries, and other records. It found that “the grounds of arrest communicated within 4 minutes of his arrest is not unreasonable.” The Sessions Court then directed the immediate surrender of the accused, failing which the police were granted liberty to arrest him.

High Court’s Observations

The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that the delay in serving the grounds of arrest violated the mandate laid down in Prabir Purkayastha, where the Supreme Court had stated that the grounds of arrest must be furnished ‘simultaneously’ with the arrest. However, Justice Gokhale, after examining the timeline and facts, upheld the Sessions Court's ruling and held that the four-minute delay did not amount to a violation of fundamental rights. In her judgment, Justice Gokhale observed: "It is clear (from facts and timeline) that the police have scrupulously followed the legally mandated procedure. The grounds of arrest are conveyed to the Petitioner within 4 minutes of his arrest. The communication of the grounds of arrest are indicated based on the diary entry as well as the contemporaneous documents produced on record. There is no violation of any fundamental right of the Petitioner."

Legal Position on Grounds of Arrest

Justice Gokhale also referred to Section 47(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which mandates that every police officer or person making an arrest without a warrant must “forthwith communicate” to the accused the reasons for the arrest. The court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that if an accused is informed of the grounds of arrest orally at the time of arrest and is provided a written communication within a reasonable time, it satisfies constitutional and statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., where the Supreme Court reiterated that the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest must be complied with at the earliest opportunity, but reasonable flexibility is permissible.

Rejection of Adjournment Plea

The petitioner’s counsel also raised concerns about the Sessions Court refusing to grant an adjournment when hearing the revision petition. Justice Gokhale dismissed this argument, stating: "The Petitioner was duly represented by a learned counsel. The submissions of the counsel are specifically reproduced and considered in the impugned order. Thus, there is no gainsaying that the Petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of hearing on the basis of rejection of his plea of adjournment."

Verdict

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order, concluding that the four-minute delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest was not unreasonable. The court also refused to stay its order upon the petitioner’s request, thereby reaffirming the validity of his arrest and the procedural compliance by the police.

Cause Title: Gunwant Tarachand Jain @ Nikesh Madhani vs State of Maharashtra 

Case No: Criminal Writ Petition 393 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale

[Read/Download order]