Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-002195-002195 — 2025 |
| Diary Number | 56321/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Constitutional law; Criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The right under Article 22(1) to be informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds of arrest is fundamental and applies to all offences. Section 47 BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 50 CrPC) must be read to require written particulars of the offence communicated in a language the arrestee understands. In true flagrante delicto, oral communication suffices temporarily, but a written copy must be supplied within a reasonable time and, in any event, at least two hours before remand proceedings. Non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal and entitles release. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Constitutional mandate of Article 22(1); statutory embodiment in Sections 47–48 BNSS 2023; need for efficacious, non-disputable communication; balancing individual liberty with investigatory exigencies; setting a minimum two-hour window for written notice before remand. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 7 July 2024 a speeding BMW hit a scooter in Mumbai, killing the pillion rider. FIR 378/2024 was registered under BNS 2023 and Motor Vehicles Act. Driver Mihir Rajesh Shah absconded; CCTV and other evidence identified him. Co-accused arrested 7 July 2024; appellant on 9 July 2024. He protested that the police never gave him written grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS 2023. Bombay HC upheld remand despite procedural lapse; appeal to SC ensued. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and police agencies |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, Supreme Court benches considering procedural safeguards |
| Overrules | Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India (2017 Del HC) and Chhagan Bhujbal v. Union of India (2016 Bom HC) |
| Distinguishes | Vihaan Kumar (2025) – oral communication only permissible as a temporary measure in flagrante delicto |
| Follows | Pankaj Bansal (2024), Prabir Purkayastha (2024), Harikisan (1962) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Every arrest under IPC (now BNS 2023) or any special statute must be accompanied by written grounds in a language the arrestee understands.
- Oral reading alone is insufficient, except when arrest in flagrante delicto makes immediate writing impractical; even then, a written copy must follow within a reasonable time and at least two hours before remand.
- Non-compliance invalidates both the arrest and any subsequent police or judicial remand.
- Remand papers must include the written grounds; any delay must be explained on the record.
- Lawyers can invoke this judgment to challenge arrests for lack of written notice, even if remand orders or charge sheets have been filed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Constitutional & Statutory Mandate
- Article 22(1) guarantees “informed … as soon as may be” of arrest grounds.
- Section 47 BNSS 2023 enacts this procedural duty; Section 48 BNSS 2023 extends notice to relatives/friends.
-
Jurisprudential Survey
- Pankaj Bansal: written grounds avoid post-arrest disputes.
- Prabir Purkayastha: written notice “as a matter of course and without exception.”
- Vihaan Kumar: oral suffice only if writing impractical, but writing remains ideal.
- Harikisan: communication must be in a language understood.
- Arnesh Kumar & Joginder Kumar: arrest stigma and need for judicial scrutiny.
-
Balancing Rights & Investigation
- True flagrante delicto may justify temporary oral notice.
- To protect counsel access and remand hearing, written notice must be given within a reasonable time and no later than two hours before magistrate appearance.
-
Consequences of Non-Compliance
- Arrest and remand are vitiated; arrestee entitled to immediate release.
- Subsequent custody applications require fresh remand with written notice on record.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Arrest without written grounds violated Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS 2023.
- Supreme Court precedents mandate written communication in all cases.
- Relief: declare arrest illegal and release appellant.
Respondent-State
- Statute does not prescribe written mode; oral communication suffices.
- No breach if grounds were conveyed verbally; High Court rightly upheld remand.
- Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha are distinguishable special-statute rulings.
Amicus Curiae
- Grounds must be communicated ASAP in every case, but writing is not mandatory under all statutes.
- Vihaan Kumar permits oral notice where writing impractical; special statutes like UAPA/PMLA still require writing.
- Timeframe flexible: “forthwith” means before remand hearing.
Factual Background
On 7 July 2024 in Mumbai, a white BMW driven at high speed struck a scooter, killing the pillion rider and injuring the rider. FIR No. 378/2024 named offences under BNS 2023 and the Motor Vehicles Act. CCTV footage and vehicle traces led police to arrest co-accused on 7 July and the appellant on 9 July 2024. The appellant challenged his police and judicial custody on the ground that he was never furnished written grounds of arrest, as required by Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS 2023. The Bombay High Court acknowledged the lapse but upheld remand; the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on questions of law.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 22(1) Constitution of India: “No person … shall be detained in custody without being informed … of the grounds for such arrest.”
- Section 47 BNSS 2023: “Every police officer … shall forthwith communicate … full particulars of the offence …”
- Section 48 BNSS 2023: duty to inform a relative/friend of arrest, logged at the station.
- Interpretation: “as soon as may be” means at arrest or very soon after; must be written, in a language understood, to enable legal consultation and opposition to remand.
- Timeframe innovation: where writing at arrest is impractical, supply within a reasonable time and no later than two hours before magistrate production.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissent or concurrence in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Establishes a two-hour minimum interval before remand for supplying written grounds if not given at arrest.
- Requires notation of any delay in remand papers with reasons.
- Clarifies that remand applications filed after release must reproduce written grounds and justify any prior absence.
- Directs courts to send this judgment to all High Courts and State Chief Secretaries for uniform compliance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Upholds key Supreme Court rulings (Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha).
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules HC decisions allowing mere oral communication (Moin Akhtar Qureshi; Chhagan Bhujbal).