Case Name: Mihir Rajesh Shah V. State Of Maharashtra And Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.2195 Of 2025
Date: Wednesday, the Sixth day of November, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five
Quorum: Hon’ble CJI B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih
FACTS
The case arises from a fatal road accident that arises on 07.07.2024, in Worli, Mumbai, wherein, a white BMW driven at a high speed, allegedly, collided with the complainant’s scooter resulting death of the complainant’s wife and injuries to the complainant. The driver, alleged to be Mihir Rajesh Shah, the appellant herein persisted in a reckless fight dragging the victim, thereafter absconding without rendering assistance and without rendering the matter to the authorities. FIR No. 378/2024 was registered at the Worli Police Station under provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. Initial investigative steps included, identification of the offending vehicle, through CCTV footage. Arrests soon followed with co-accused, Rajrishi Rajendra Singh Bindawat being taken into custody the same day and Mihir Rajesh Shah being apprehended on 9.07.2024. The evidence collected showed, the appellant being the driver at the material time, consumption of alcohol just before the incident as well as an attempt to alter his appearance.
The appellant challenged the legality of the arrest before the Bombay High Court, on the ground that he was not informed the grounds of arrest in writing, as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and Section 47 of BNSS 2023 equivalent to Section 50 of CrPC 1973. The High Court, upheld the arrest stating that, failure to provide the written grounds did not invalidate the arrest as the appellant was well aware of the allegations against him. Aggrieved, by the decision of the High Court, the appellant appealed in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether furnishing of grounds of arrest to the accused in writing is mandatory in writing under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS in all criminal cases.
- Whether in situations of urgency or special circumstances where the authorities are unable to provide the grounds of arrest to the accused either prior to arrest or immediately thereafter, such failure would render the arrest invalid due to non-compliance with Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023)
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21, Article 22(1)- (Protection of personal liberty, Right to be informed of grounds of arrest and to consult legal counsel)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023- Section 47, Section 48, Section 187 ( Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail, Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to relative or friend, Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours)
ARGUMENTS
Appellant
The appellant contended that the arrest was unconstitutional as he was not supplied regarding the grounds of arrest in writing, from effectively seeking legal advice, challenging the remand or applying for bail. Reliance was placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others (2024) 7 SCC 576 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244, wherein it was held that to meet the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, 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, and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, wherein it was held that, dealing with the issue of communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee in the offences relating to Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and relying upon Pankaj Bansal case, 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.
Respondent- State
The State argued that Section 47 of BNSS does not expressly require the grounds of arrest to be supplied in writing and oral communication was sufficient. The gravity of the offence, the evidence against the appellant, and his attempt to evade arrest justified custody. The State claimed that subsequent judicial remand validated the arrest.
Analysis
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees right to be informed on the grounds of arrest at the earliest. This right is not dependent on the nature of the offence or statute involved. The Supreme Court emphasized that, mere oral communication is insufficient because it does not enable the arrested person to meaningfully seek legal advice, defend custody, or apply for bail. Written communication helps in resolving dispute and ensures that the person is aware of the charge against him.
The Court reaffirmed that failure to comply with Article 22(1) cannot be cured by later remand orders and the filing of a charge-sheet. The right is absolute and it is not negotiable. Personal liberty cannot be compromised at the cost of administrative convenience.
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory without exception under Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS. Non-communication of the same, would result in illegal arrest and custody.
The arrest of the appellant was declared to be illegal and he was ordered to be released. The Court stated that while the nature of offence was serious procedural safeguards cannot be compromised and rule of law must prevail.
Conclusion
The judgement reaffirmed that constitutional safeguards surrounding personal liberty are very important in nature. The right to be informed regarding the grounds of arrest in writing is an essential protection that enables meaningful access to justice. Even, in the most serious offences procedural safeguards cannot be ignored. Strict adherence to legal procedures strengthens accountability and prevents abuse of state power.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SOUMITA CHAKRABORTY
Click here to read more: Mihir Rajesh Shah V. State Of Maharashtra And Another
