Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered multiple criminal appeals involving the common question of law regarding the mandatory nature of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), formerly Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The lead appeal arose from a tragic hit-and-run incident on 07.07.2024, where a white BMW driven by the appellant collided with a scooter, dragging and killing the complainant's wife. The appellant was arrested on 09.07.2024. He challenged his arrest on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not provided to him in writing, violating constitutional and statutory protections. The High Court of Bombay upheld the arrest despite the procedural lapse, noting the appellant's conscious awareness of the gravity of the offence and his evasion. The Supreme Court granted leave and formulated two questions: whether the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest in writing applies to all cases, including those under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and whether exceptional circumstances can excuse non-compliance. The appellant relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana to argue that written grounds are mandatory without exception. The respondent State contended that the mode of communication is not specified, and the cited cases pertained to special statutes. An amicus curiae supported the appellant's position. The Court's final decision and ratio are not contained in the provided excerpt, which ends during the amicus's submissions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether in every case, including under IPC/BNS, written grounds of arrest must be furnished before or immediately after arrest; whether exceptional exigencies excuse non-compliance with Section 50 CrPC/Section 47 BNSS
Law Points
- Requirement to inform grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS is mandatory
- mode of communication must be meaningful and in writing as per Pankaj Bansal
- no exception for special statutes
- arrest vitiated if non-compliance
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (11) 17
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 along with Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 2190 of 2025, and S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8704 of 2025
State of Maharashtra and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against High Court order upholding legality of arrest despite non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought declaration that arrest was illegal and for release.
Filing Reason
Arrest was made without providing grounds of arrest in writing, allegedly violating constitutional and statutory provisions.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Bombay upheld arrest in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2024 despite procedural lapse, citing conscious awareness of offence and evasion.
Issues
Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence under IPC 1860 now BNS 2023, it is necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest.
Whether, even in exceptional cases, where on account of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS).
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that arrest without informing grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS, relying on Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar, which require written grounds without exception.
Respondent State contended that mode of communication is not specified, and reliance on cases pertaining to special statutes is misplaced; the arrest was lawful.
Amicus Curiae submitted that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing in all cases regardless of the statute, as mandated by Article 22(1) and procedural law.
Judgment Excerpts
The main issue as raised by the Appellants in these Appeals is the violation of the Appellants’ right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC 1973”) now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS 2023”) as the appellants assert that they were not informed of grounds of their arrest in writing.
This Court, while considering the Special Leave Petition recorded that the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition on its merits and issued notice only to the extent of considering the question of law/legal position.
Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC 1860”) now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023) would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest.
Procedural History
Arrest on 09.07.2024; provisional and judicial custody challenged; High Court dismissed writ petition on 25.11.2024; appeal to Supreme Court; leave granted on 22.04.2025 with ad interim bail in connected matters; Amicus Curiae appointed on 13.12.2024; appeals tagged and heard together.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 22(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 50
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 47
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
