# Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1288
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-11-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mihir-rajesh-shah-v-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-38144
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence
under Penal Code, 1860 now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
would it be 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 of the CrPC
1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023).
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Constitutional mandate of -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.50 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s.47 - Whether in each and every
case, even arising out of an offence under Penal Code, 1860
now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 would it be necessary to
furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest
or forthwith after arrest:
Held: 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) - The grounds of arrest
must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language
he/she understands - 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 - In case of non-compliance,
the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and
the person will be at liberty to be set free - The requirement of
* Author
292
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of
and u/Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality
but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard included in Part III
of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights - Thus,
if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as
maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights
curtailing his right to life and personal liberty u/Art.21, rendering
the arrest illegal. [Paras 56, 40]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.50 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
s.47 - 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 of the CrPC 1973 (now Section
47 of BNSS 2023):
Held: Non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee
prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest on
the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of s.50 of the
CrPC 1973 (now s.47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds
are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case two
hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the magistrate
for remand proceedings - 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 to the person at the
time of arrest - Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be
supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no
event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before
the magistrate for remand proceedings - The remand papers shall
contain the grounds of arrest a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,649 of 81,992. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39649 for what follows._

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 291 : 2025 INSC 1288
Mihir Rajesh Shah
v.
State of Maharashtra and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025)
06 November 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence
under Penal Code, 1860 now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
would it be 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 of the CrPC
1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023).
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Constitutional mandate of -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.50 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s.47 - Whether in each and every
case, even arising out of an offence under Penal Code, 1860
now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 would it be necessary to
furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest
or forthwith after arrest:
Held: 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) - The grounds of arrest
must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language
he/she understands - 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 - In case of non-compliance,
the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and
the person will be at liberty to be set free - The requirement of
* Author
292
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of
and u/Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality
but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard included in Part III
of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights - Thus,
if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as
maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights
curtailing his right to life and personal liberty u/Art.21, rendering
the arrest illegal. [Paras 56, 40]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.50 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
s.47 - 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 of the CrPC 1973 (now Section
47 of BNSS 2023):
Held: Non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee
prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest on
the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of s.50 of the
CrPC 1973 (now s.47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds
are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case two
hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the magistrate
for remand proceedings - 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 to the person at the
time of arrest - Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be
supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no
event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before
the magistrate for remand proceedings - The remand papers shall
contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply
thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information
of the magistrate - Two-hour threshold before production for remand
strikes a judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee's
constitutional rights u/Art.22(1) and preserving the operational
continuity of criminal investigations. [Paras 52-54]
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
293
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Constitutional mandate under,
not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard
in the form of fundamental rights - Intent and purpose of the
constitutional mandate, explained - Mode of communicating
the grounds of arrest to serve the intended purpose - Art.22(1)
not to be read in a restrictive manner:
Held: Mere communication of the grounds in a language not
understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional
mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India - Failure to
supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee
renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the
personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and
22 of the Constitution of India - 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. [Paras 42-46]
Constitution of India - Arts.22(1), 21 - Constitutional mandate
of - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.50 - Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s.47 - Appellant-accused
challenged the legality of his arrest in a case when a BMW
car driven by him at a high speed collided violently with the
complainant's scooter leading to his wife succumbing to the
severe injuries - Appellant contended that the grounds of
arrest were not furnished in writing as mandated by Art.22(1)
of the Constitution of India and s.47 of BNSS 2023 equivalent
to s.50 of CrPC 1973 - High Court despite the acknowledgment
of this procedural lapse, upheld the validity of arrest due to
the Appellant's conscious awareness of the gravity of the
offence, supported by substantial evidence and the Appellant's
evasion of arrest, justifying custody despite the missing
written grounds:
Held: The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds
of arrest, in the light of and u/Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India,
is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional
safeguard included in Part III of the Constitution under the head
of Fundamental Rights - Thus, if a person is not informed of the
294
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the
violation of his fundamental rights curtailing his right to life and
personal liberty u/Art.21, rendering the arrest illegal - Petition not
entertained on merits, notice was issued only to settle the issues
to bring about clarity thereon - In connected cases, by way of
ad interim relief, the Appellants were directed to be released on
bail during pendency of these Appeals, the same shall continue.
[Paras 40, 59, 60]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Constitutional mandate of -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.50 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s.47 - Constitutional mandate and
statutory provisions giving effect to the constitutional mandate
in Article 22 of the Constitution of India; jurisprudential
developments and impact of arrest on a person, discussed.
[Paras 17-31]
Case Law Cited
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [2023] 12 SCR 714 :
(2024) 7 SCC 576; Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi
[2024] 6 SCR 666 : (2024) 8 SCC 254; Vihaan Kumar v. State
of Haryana and Another [2025] 2 SCR 424 : (2025) 5 SCC 799;
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014] 8 SCR 128 :
(2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others
[1994] 3 SCR 661 : (1994) 4 SCC 260; Suhas Chakma v. Union
of India and Others [2024] 10 SCR 1769 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3031; Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 381; Manubhai
Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others [2012] 8 SCR 993 :
(2013) 1 SCC 314; Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India and
Others [1981] 2 SCR 352 : (1981) 2 SCC 427 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Grounds of arrest; Necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an
accused; Informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory
in all offences; Grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing; In
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
295
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
the language arrestee understands; Right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 of Constitution of India; Arrest illegal; Article 22(1)
of Constitution of India; Section 50 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2195 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in CRWP Nos. 3533 of 2024
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2189 and 2190 of 2025 and SLP (Crl.)
No. 8704 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Shri Singh, Ms. Tusharika Mattoo, Siddharth Satija, Abhinav Sekhri,
Amicus Curiaes.
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Advs.,
Siddharth Sharma, Jay Bhardwaj, Ms. Disha Bajaj, Rishi Bhuta,
Ms. Ishika Chauhan, Rishi Sehgal, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Arveen Sekhon,
Ms. Muskaan Khurana, Karl P. Rustomkhan, Vaibhav Jagtap,
Ashish Pandey, Shubham Saxena, Anmol Goyal, Pushkar Dwivedi,
Akshit Chauhan.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Vinayak Aren, Amlaan Kumar,
Jatin Dhamija, Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.
1.
These Appeals being Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025, Criminal
Appeal No.2189 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.2190 of 2025
were originally filed as Special Leave Petitions where leave was
296
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
granted vide Order dated 22.04.2025. Since, in all these Appeals
similar questions of law are involved, they are being decided by
this common judgment. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8704
of 2025 was tagged with the above-mentioned matters vide Order
dated 02.06.2025.
2.
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.
3.
For convenience, Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 is taken as
the lead case. The facts in a nutshell are that on 07.07.2024, a
white BMW car, driven at a high speed, collided violently with
the complainant's scooter from behind. The force of the impact
propelled both the complainant and his wife onto the car's bonnet,
whereby the complainant was thrown to the side, and tragically, his
wife became ensnared between the vehicle's front left wheel and
bumper. Notwithstanding this grievous state, the driver, alleged
to be Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Appellant herein, persisted in his
reckless flight, dragging the victim, thereafter absconding without
rendering assistance or reporting the incident to authorities. The
victim succumbed to the severe injuries sustained in this collision, as
medically confirmed, while the complainant sustained minor injuries.
FIR No. 378/2024 was registered at Worli Police Station under the
relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS 2023"),
and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Initial investigative steps included
the identification of the offending vehicle through CCTV footage, and
the discovery near Kalanagar Junction Flyover of the damaged BMW
alongside Rajrishi Rajendra Singh Bindawat and Rajesh Shah, father
of Mihir Rajesh Shah (hereinafter, "Appellant"). Arrests soon followed,
with co-accused Rajrishi Rajendra Singh Bindawat being taken into
custody on the same day and Mihir Rajesh Shah being apprehended
on 09.07.2024. The evidence collected firmly established the Appellant
as the driver at the material time, including CCTV footage capturing
his presence at the wheel, consumption of alcohol shortly before the
incident, an attempt to alter his appearance, and use of a Fastag
registered in his name, amongst other incriminating particulars.
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
297
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
4.
The remand proceedings saw the Appellant being produced before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class with initial police custody extending
subsequently into judicial custody; a course contested on the grounds
that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing as mandated
by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS
2023 equivalent to Section 50 of CrPC 1973.
5.
The Appellant's challenge against the legality of arrest was ultimately
considered by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 3533 of 2024 wherein, vide Judgment dated 25.11.2024, the
High Court of Bombay, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of this
procedural lapse, upheld the validity of arrest due to the Appellant's
conscious awareness of the gravity of the offence, supported by
substantial evidence and the Appellant's evasion of arrest, thereby
justifying custody despite the missing written grounds. The Appellant approached this Court challenging the Judgment of Bombay
High Court contending that grounds of arrest as mandated under
Section 47 of BNSS 2023 were not informed to him in writing.
6.
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. In connected cases, being Criminal Appeal No. 2189
of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 2190 of 2025, this Court vide Order
dated 22.04.2025, has granted ad interim relief and directed the Appellants to be released on bail during pendency of these Appeals.
In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8704 of 2025 vide Order
dated 02.06.2025, ad interim relief was also granted to the Petitioner
therein directing his release on bail. On 13.12.2024, Mr. Shri Singh,
learned counsel, who was present in the Court was appointed as
Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this matter.
7.
Then, while granting leave on 22.04.2025, this Court formulated the
following questions of law for consideration:
(a) 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, and
(b) Whether, even in exceptional cases, where on account
of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the
298
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after
arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on the ground of noncompliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC
1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023).
8.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the
action of the Respondent of arresting the Appellant without informing
the grounds of arrest is in gross violation of the constitutional protection
and mandate of Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and Section 47 of BNSS 2023. He substantiates his contention
relying upon the decision of this Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union
of India and Others1, contending that this Court has clearly held
that to meet the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India, the mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily
be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose and therefore it
must be furnished to the arrestee in writing as a matter of course.
9.
Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Court in Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein while dealing with
the issue of communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee in
the offences related to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
("UAPA"), this Court relying upon Pankaj Bansal (supra) reiterated
that the grounds of arrest shall be furnished to the person arrested
under UAPA or any other offence in writing without any exception
at the earliest.
10. He further relies upon the decision of this Court in Vihaan Kumar v.
State of Haryana and Another3, wherein it was held that the
requirement of informing a person arrested, of grounds of arrest
is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and it must be conveyed in such a mode and method so as to
achieve the object of the constitutional safeguard. He contends that
Article 22 of the Constitution of India does not differentiate between
offences under BNS 2023 (earlier IPC 1860) or offences under any
other special statute such as UAPA, thereby claiming violation of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS
2023 by the Respondent. He, therefore, prays for the arrest to be
declared illegal and the Appellant to be set at liberty.
1
(2024) 7 SCC 576 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244
2
(2024) 8 SCC 254
3
(2025) 5 SCC 799 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
299
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent-State
submits that the mode of communication of grounds of arrest is not
specified in the provision of Section 47 of BNSS 2023. The reliance
on the decisions in the cases of Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Prabir
Purkayastha (supra), is misplaced as both the cases pertain to
special statutes and the facts therein are not similar to the present
case. It is argued that the mandate of Article 22(1) is to inform the
grounds of arrest to the arrestee and there is no specific statutory
mandate to provide such grounds in writing. The Respondent while
supporting the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay contends that
while informing grounds of arrest to the arrestee is mandatory, the
mode thereof is not specified, and hence, the Appellant has been
arrested in consonance with law and by following all procedural
safeguards.
12. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the grounds of arrest must
be communicated to the arrested person in all cases without any
exception regardless of the nature of offences i.e. offences under
BNS 2023 (IPC 1860) or under any special statute such as UAPA
etc. irrespective of the mode of conveying/ communication specified
or not in the statute. Reliance is placed upon Pankaj Bansal (supra)
and Prabir Purkayastha (supra) for submitting that even the special
statutes do not provide for an exception from informing grounds of
arrest.
13. Further, regarding the mode of informing the grounds of arrest, learned
Amicus Curiae submits that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
as well as the procedural law under BNSS 2023 (CrPC 1973) do not
make it mandatory to provide such grounds in writing to the arrestee.
He submits that as long as the remand court or any other court is
convinced that the grounds of arrest have been duly communicated,
the mandate under Article 22(1) and BNSS 2023 would stand
satisfied. This Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) observed that ideally
grounds of arrest should be informed in writing, however, in Vihaan
Kumar (supra) it was acknowledged that it might not be practical to
provide grounds of arrest to an accused in each and every case in
writing and thus clarified that there is no mandate to communicate
the grounds of arrest in writing. Nevertheless, for investigations
under special statutes such as Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 ("PMLA") or UAPA, this Court has specifically held that
such grounds of arrest be communicated in writing. The decisions in
300
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
cases of Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra)
need to be read harmoniously with Vihaan Kumar (supra) which
provides as a general rule that grounds of arrest are not mandated
to be communicated in writing.
14. On the aspect of timeframe within which grounds of arrest must
be supplied to the arrested person, he submits that there is no
straightjacket formula regarding the timeframe within which grounds
of arrest must be communicated/supplied to the arrested person. The
law provides that the grounds of arrest ought to be communicated at
the time of arrest or at the earliest possible instance. The grounds of
arrest must be provided forthwith i.e. within a reasonable time so as
to allow the arrested accused an effective opportunity to consult a
legal practitioner and be sufficiently prepared to oppose remand. The
reasonable time would depend on the facts of each case; however,
the grounds must be provided prior to the remand hearing.
15. Learned Amicus Curiae rests his submissions by stating that there
can be no doubt that non-communication of the grounds of arrest to
the arrested person amounts to the violation of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India, entitling the arrestee to be released from the
custody. However, there can be no absolute rule that if an arrest is
found to be contrary to law, all investigative procedures linked to the
arrest must be deemed to have been vitiated. The effect of failure to
communicate grounds of arrest would have to be seen in the context
of proceedings when such an objection is raised and the nature of
investigation conducted after the arrest of the accused.
16. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, learned Amicus
Curiae and on perusal of the material on record, we find it apposite
that prior to undertaking and answering the aforementioned issues,
it is imperative to delve into the constitutional mandate and statutory
provisions relatable to informing of grounds of arrest to the arrested
person as well as the existing jurisprudence as developed by this
Court while dealing with such provisions.
17. The genesis of informing the grounds of arrest to a person flows from
the Constitutional safeguard provided in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, which reads "No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law".
The expression 'personal liberty' has been given a wide meaning
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
301
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
through various judicial pronouncements. One of which is that
personal liberty includes procedural safeguards from the abuse of
power by the State agencies and scrutiny of the actions of the State.
18. Article 22 of the Constitution of India further strengthens the protection
of personal liberty of a person by providing that a person arrested
must be informed of the grounds of his arrest at the earliest and
should not be detained without informing him of such grounds. Article
22 reads as follow:
"22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain
cases.-(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained
in custody without being informed, as soon as may be,
of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the
right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner
of his choice.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a
period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the
time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be
detained in custody beyond the said period without the
authority of a magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply-
(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy
alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under
any law providing for preventive detention.
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise
the detention of a person for a longer period than three
months unless-
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who
are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed
as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the
expiration of the said period of three months that there
is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise
the detention of any person beyond the maximum
302
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
period prescribed by any law made by Parliament
under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the
provisions of any law made by Parliament under
sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order
made under any law providing for preventive detention,
the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the grounds on which the
order has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order.
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making
any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose
facts which such authority considers to be against the
public interest to disclose.
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe-
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or
classes of cases in which, a person may be detained
for a period longer than three months under any law
providing for preventive detention without obtaining
the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with
the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person may
in any class or classes of cases be detained under
any law providing for preventive detention; and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board
in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4)."
19. The Constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22 of the
Constitution of India has been effectuated by the legislature by
incorporating Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS
2023) which puts into force the procedural mandate providing for
the protection of the personal liberty of the person so arrested.
Section 47 of BNSS 2023 casts a duty on the police officer or other
person arresting any person without a warrant shall communicate
him the grounds of arrest, which is reproduced herein below:
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
303
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
"47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of
arrest and of right to bail.--(1) Every police officer or
other person arresting any person without warrant shall
forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence
for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any
person other than a person accused of a non-bailable
offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is
entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange
for sureties on his behalf."
20. Section 50A of the CrPC 1973 now Section 48 of BNSS 2023 was
further added to extend the scope of such protection by casting a
duty upon the person arresting to inform such grounds of arrest to
his friend, relative or any other person nominated by arrested person.
Section 48 of BNSS 2023 reads as follows:
"48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform
about arrest, etc., to relative or friend.-- (1) Every
police officer or other person making any arrest under this
Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such
arrest and place where the arrested person is being held
to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as
may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person
for the purpose of giving such information and also to the
designated police officer in the district.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of
his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought
to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the
arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept
in the police station in such form as the State Government
may, by rules, provide.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such
arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the
requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have
been complied with in respect of such arrested person."
21. After having discussed the constitutional mandate and statutory
provisions giving effect to the constitutional mandate in Article 22
304
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the Constitution of India, let us now consider the jurisprudence
developed by this Court with respect to furnishing of grounds of
arrest through its decisions.
22. In Pankaj Bansal (supra), this Court while dealing with the issue
of furnishing grounds of arrest under Section 19(1) of PMLA has
underscored that Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that
no arrested person shall be detained without being informed of the
grounds of such arrest at the earliest opportunity. The manner in
which such grounds are to be communicated must be efficacious
and substantive which must fulfil the essential objective and mandate
of the constitutional provisions. It was further held that there exists
no plausible justification as to why a written copy of the grounds of
arrest ought not be provided to the arrestee as a standard procedural
requirement without any exception.
23. This Court has reached the above conclusion based on the proposition
that mere oral communication of such grounds, in the absence of
any written document, renders the compliance susceptible to factual
disputes which often result into conflicting claims between the
arrested person and the investigating agency. This conflict results
in jeopardizing the integrity of the arrest process and thereby giving
an opportunity to the accused person to claim an immediate release.
This situation may be obviated by furnishing the grounds of arrest
in writing. Apart from the practical difficulties, furnishing grounds of
arrest in writing also results into effective compliance of the mandate
provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The relevant
portion of the decision in Pankaj Bansal (supra) is reproduced herein:
"38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of
the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who
is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to
the arrested person, the mode of conveying information
of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful
so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted
that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under
Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates
that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are
satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
305
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that,
firstly, the court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity
to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for
release, that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence and,
secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for
the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which
the authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19
and the basis for the officer's "reason to believe" that he/
she is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act.
It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these
facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove
before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe
that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the
relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the grounds of
arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose
and must be given due importance.
***
***
***
42. That being so, there is no valid reason as to why a copy
of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished
to the arrested person as a matter of course and without
exception. There are two primary reasons as to why this
would be the advisable course of action to be followed as
a matter of principle. Firstly, in the event such grounds of
arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by
such person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in
a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested
person against the word of the authorised officer as to
whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this
regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar
as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though ED claims that
witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of
arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that
is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document.
Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the
arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji v.
306
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
State [(2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. Such a
precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence
thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written
grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorised officer
in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA, to the arrested person
under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the
debatable ipse dixit of the authorised officer.
43. The second reason as to why this would be the proper
course to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying
such information being given to the arrested person.
Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the
arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to
enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter,
present a case before the court under Section 45 to seek
release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the
grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji v. State [(2024) 3 SCC
51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1], are placed on record and we find
that the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds
of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj
Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before
this Court, but it was contended that they were produced
at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier,
this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the
event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it
would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or
Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had
read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail
legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been
arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of
mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the
contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/
her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory
protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the
authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading
of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and
detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional
requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate
under Section 19(1) PMLA.
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
307
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
44. We may also note that the grounds of arrest recorded
by the authorised officer, in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA,
would be personal to the person who is arrested and
there should, ordinarily, be no risk of sensitive material
being divulged therefrom, compromising the sanctity and
integrity of the investigation. In the event any such sensitive
material finds mention in such grounds of arrest recorded
by the authorised officer, it would always be open to him to
redact such sensitive portions in the document and furnish
the edited copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrested
person, so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation.
45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and
purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate
of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of
the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary,
henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest
is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course
and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High
Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India [2017
SCC OnLine Del 12108] and the Bombay High Court
in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India [2016
SCC OnLine Bom 9938 : (2017) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) 929],
which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct
law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that
ED›s investigating officer merely read out or permitted
reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and
left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As
this form of communication is not found to be adequate
to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of
the Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we have no
hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping
with the provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA. Further, as
already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of ED in
proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second
ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in
relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance
as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the
arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand
to the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody,
cannot be sustained."
308
[2025] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
24. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), of which, one of us was a member
(B.R. Gavai, J., as he then was), this Court reiterated the principle
laid down in the above judgment, while dealing with offences under
UAPA and held that any individual arrested for alleged commission
of offences under the UAPA or any other offence for that matter, has
both a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed in writing such
grounds of arrest. The Court further held that a copy of such written
grounds must be furnished to the arrested person at the earliest
without any exception observing that the communication provided
under Article 22 and Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of
BNSS 2023) is not a mere procedural formality but a vital safeguard
with the ultimate objective to enable the arrested person to effectively
consult legal aid and be prepared to raise objections in remand
hearing and apply for his/her bail. The right to life and personal liberty,
safeguarded under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, stands
as the paramount fundamental right. Accordingly, infringement of
these constitutional protections commands rigorous judicial scrutiny
and strict enforcement.
25. It was said that any breach of the constitutional safeguards provided
under Article 22 would vitiate the lawfulness of arrest and subsequent
remand and entitle the arrested person to be set at liberty. The
relevant portion in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) is reproduced herein:
"19.