If Written Grounds Of Arrest Not Furnished At Least Two Hours Before Production Of Accused Before Magistrate, Arrest And Remand Illegal: Supreme Court Extends Mandate To All Offences Under IPC/BNS
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on Thursday (November 6) extended the requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest to all offences under the Indian Penal Code (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), not just to cases under special statutes such as the PMLA or UAPA. The Court held that failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, would render both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. Deciding appeals arising from a Maharashtra hit-and-run case, the Bench clarified that written grounds must ordinarily be supplied in every case, and where immediate written communication is impracticable, they must still be furnished at least two hours before the accused is produced before the magistrate.
The case arose from a road accident in Mumbai on July 7, 2024, in which a speeding BMW car fatally injured a woman and injured her husband, who were riding a two-wheeler. The driver allegedly fled the scene. On investigation, CCTV footage and vehicle registration linked the car to the accused, who was arrested on July 9, 2024, under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly IPC), and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The accused challenged his arrest before the Bombay High Court, contending that he was not provided with the grounds of arrest in writing, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The High Court dismissed his plea, observing that he was aware of the reasons for arrest and that written communication was not required.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant reiterated that the arrest violated Articles 21 and 22(1) as he was not informed of the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language he understood. The State of Maharashtra submitted that the accused had been orally informed of the reasons and that the law did not mandate written communication in all cases. The Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist.
The Bench framed two principal issues:
(a) Whether the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS requires written communication in all offences, including those under the IPC/BNS; and (b) Whether failure to furnish written grounds of arrest renders the arrest and remand illegal.
The Court observed: “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 stated that the purpose of this safeguard is to ensure that an arrested person is made aware of the reasons for detention and can seek legal recourse and counsel. “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.”
The Court cited Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, noting that “communication must mean imparting to the detenue sufficient knowledge of all the grounds on which the order of detention is based… any oral translation or explanation given by the police officer serving those on the detenue would not amount to communicating the grounds.”
The Bench stated: “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.”
The Court addressed practical considerations: “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)… A rigid insistence upon informing of written ground(s) of arrest before or at the time of effecting the arrest or immediately thereafter may result into police officer not being able to discharge their duty… 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… must be struck.”
It elaborated: “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)… since 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.”
The Court recorded: “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… Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied… within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production… before the magistrate for remand proceedings.”
It further observed: “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.”
The Court held that non-supply of written grounds immediately on arrest “would not vitiate such arrest… provided the said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to production before the magistrate for remand proceedings.”
Finally, “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… after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing…”
The Court directed: “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.”
“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.”
“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… Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied… within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings.”
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.”
The Court ordered: “In Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025… the same stands disposed of. As far as the Criminal Appeal Nos. 2189 and 2190 of 2025 are concerned… the ad interim relief shall continue… the prosecution may move an application for remand or custody, if required, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused.”
“The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8704 of 2025… the ad interim relief shall continue. We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Counsels for the parties. 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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Siddharth Sharma, AOR Ms. Ishika Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya, Adv. Ms. Smriti Churiwal, Adv. Ms. Akshada Pasi, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Vijay Kalra, AOR Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jaiveer Kant, Adv. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Muskaan Khurana, Adv. Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Mr. Karl P. Rustomkhan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, AOR Mr. Vishesh Vijay Kalra, AOR Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Case Title: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1288
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2195 OF 2025 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2189 OF 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2190 OF 2025 AND S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 8704 OF 2025
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
