Supreme Court directs written grounds of arrest in all cases and prescribes two‑hour minimum before remand

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard appeals arising out of alleged failure to furnish written grounds of arrest and challenged orders of the Bombay High Court upholding arrests where written grounds were not provided. The matters raised constitutional questions under Article 22(1) and the statutory counterpart (Section 47 BNSS 2023, formerly Section 50 CrPC) on whether grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing in every case and, if not given immediately, whether the arrest would be vitiated.

The Court held that the constitutional and statutory mandate was mandatory and that the mode of communication must be meaningful to serve its purpose. The Court, while recognising limited operational exigencies, clarified that the general rule required written grounds in the language the arrestee understood and prescribed a firm minimum timing before remand. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: It further held that where furnishing written grounds on arrest was impractical (for example, offences committed in flagrante delicto), oral communication would suffice initially but a written copy must be supplied within a reasonable time and, in any event, at least two hours prior to the arrestee’s production before the magistrate for remand; failure to comply would render the arrest and remand illegal and attract release. The Court emphasised that remand papers must contain the written grounds and, if delayed, a note explaining the delay for the magistrate’s consideration. The Court also continued interim bail granted earlier in connected matters while preserving the prosecution’s right to seek remand after supplying written grounds.

Background The lead appeal arose from a July 7, 2024 hit‑and‑run in Mumbai in which a speeding BMW allegedly driven by the appellant collided with a scooter, killing the rider’s wife. The vehicle was later found damaged; arrests followed. The appellant contended that he was not furnished the grounds of arrest in writing, violating Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS 2023, and sought release. The Bombay High Court acknowledged a procedural lapse but declined to set aside the arrest on facts showing consciousness of guilt and evasion. The appellant approached this Court by Special Leave Petition limited to the legal question of whether written grounds must be furnished in every case and whether non‑compliance vitiated arrest. The Court reviewed constitutional provisions — notably 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” — and a line of precedents including Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha and Vihaan Kumar. It balanced the salutary purpose of Article 22(1) — to enable legal consultation and effective opposition to remand — against operational realities of policing, and concluded that written grounds must ordinarily be furnished in every case and always before remand subject only to narrowly drawn exceptions with strict timing safeguards. The Court disposed the matters on these legal questions, left merits of individual appeals to the parties’ rights, and directed registry to circulate the judgment to High Courts and state authorities. Interim bail granted in connected appeals continued; prosecutions may apply for remand after furnishing written grounds.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 (Lead); Criminal Appeal Nos. 2189 & 2190 of 2025; S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8704 of 2025; Citation: 2025 INSC 1288 Case Title: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Counsel not indicated in reported judgment); Amicus Curiae appointed: Mr. Shri Singh (assisted the Court) For the Respondent(s): (State counsel names not indicated in reported judgment)