Grounds of Arrest Must Be Given in Writing for Every Offence: Supreme Court

The lead appeal arose from a fatal hit-and-run in Mumbai on 7 July 2024: a BMW, alleged to have been driven by the appellant, struck a scooter from behind and the complainant's wife died of her injuries (para 3). Arrested on 9 July 2024 and remanded, he contended that the grounds of arrest were not given to him in writing as Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS require (paras 3-4). The Bombay High Court acknowledged the lapse but upheld the arrest (para 5). The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits and issued notice only on the question of law; two connected appellants got interim bail (para 6).

The Court framed two questions: whether grounds must be furnished in every case, including IPC/BNS offences, and whether an arrest is vitiated where exigencies prevent furnishing them before or immediately after arrest (para 7). Article 22(1) casts a "mandatory unexceptional duty" on the State; the obligation is not statute-specific and applies to all offences (para 39). Not informing an arrested person of the grounds violates Articles 21 and 22 and renders the arrest illegal (para 40). Reading the grounds out is not enough (paras 41, 45), and, following Harikisan and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, they must be in a language the person understands (paras 42-44). Written communication is therefore required in every case (para 46). Where the police already hold documentary material, written grounds must be given on arrest; for offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, oral grounds at arrest suffice, followed by written grounds no later than two hours before production for remand, with the remand papers containing the grounds or a note explaining any delay (paras 51-52). The two-hour interval lets the defence prepare to oppose remand (para 53). As no consistent requirement had existed, the procedure "shall govern arrests henceforth" (para 58).