Introduction
The Supreme Court in the case titled Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State Of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Appeal No.2195 Of 2025), examined whether grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to comply with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Justice Augustine George Masih, established binding precedent on the procedural safeguards required when apprehending individuals. The decision underscores that personal liberty, a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21, cannot be encroached upon without strict adherence to constitutional mandates governing police custody.
Factual Background
The tragic incident occurred on 07 July 2024 in Mumbai when a white BMW vehicle traveling at excessive speed collided with a motorcycle from behind. The impact propelled both the motorcycle’s occupants onto the vehicle’s bonnet, with the driver’s wife becoming fatally trapped between the vehicle’s wheel and bumper. The BMW driver, subsequently identified as Mihir Rajesh Shah, abandoned the scene without rendering assistance or reporting the incident. While the motorcycle owner sustained minor injuries, his wife succumbed to her injuries. Investigation revealed substantial corroborating evidence: CCTV footage identifying the vehicle and confirming the accused as the driver, proof of alcohol consumption preceding the incident and Fastag records confirming his vehicle’s presence. The Accused was arrested on 09 July 2024, following the discovery of the damaged BMW near Kalanagar Junction Flyover.
Contentions of Parties
The Appellant’s legal representatives challenged the arrest’s legality, alleging that the police failed to furnish written grounds of arrest, thereby violating Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS 2023. They cited Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, asserting that written communication of arrest grounds represents a fundamental constitutional requirement applicable uniformly across all offences. They further contended that the constitutional protection does not differentiate between offences under ordinary criminal law and special statutes, demanding that written grounds be supplied as a matter of course.
The State countered that Section 47 of BNSS 2023 specifies no particular mode of communication. While acknowledging the mandatory nature of informing the arrestee, the State argued that statutory provisions do not mandate written communication specifically. They emphasized that the arrested person possessed conscious awareness of the grave circumstances surrounding the incident and the weightiness of accusations, suggesting that oral communication sufficed. The High Court of Bombay had previously upheld the arrest despite the procedural lapse, citing the substantial evidence and the Accused’s evasion attempts.
The Amicus Curiae adopted an intermediary position, emphasizing that grounds must be communicated in all cases without exception but distinguishing between the substantive right and its procedural implementation. They suggested that Courts may accept proof of communication through various means provided they are satisfied grounds were duly conveyed.
Court’s Decision and Analysis
First, the Court held unequivocally that grounds of arrest must be communicated in all offences under all statutes without exception. This constitutional mandate, flowing from Article 22(1), applies uniformly regardless of whether offences fall under ordinary criminal law or special legislation.
Second, addressing mode of communication, the Court adopted a pragmatic yet rights-protective framework. The Judgment recognized that identical language in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates written communication, drawing from established jurisprudence on preventive detention. Significantly, the Court reasoned that merely reading grounds orally leaves compliance susceptible to factual disputes, potentially resulting in conflicting claims between enforcement agencies and arrestees.
Crucially, the Court established a temporal framework. Where police possess documentary material furnishing arrest basis, written grounds must be supplied contemporaneously with arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances, such as crimes against persons committed in police presence where imminent risks of absconding exist, oral communication at arrest is permissible. Subsequently, written grounds must be provided within a reasonable timeframe, specifically no later than two hours before production before the magistrate for remand proceedings.
This two-hour threshold ensures arrested persons’ counsel possesses adequate opportunity to examine the arrest’s foundation, consult with clients and prepare meaningful defences before remand hearings. The Judgment emphasized that grounds must be furnished in languages comprehensible to the arrestee, ensuring the constitutional mandate achieves its intended purpose of enabling meaningful legal representation and effective opposition to custody.
Conclusion
This Judgment fortifies constitutional protections surrounding arrest while acknowledging law enforcement’s operational requirements. By mandating written grounds within specified timeframes across all offences, the Court affirms that personal liberty protection transcends statutory categorization. The two-hour framework represents a balanced approach permitting flexibility in extraordinary circumstances while guaranteeing meaningful justice access. The Judgment reinforces that constitutional safeguards, though foundational, require procedurally realistic implementation. Ultimately, this decision demonstrates the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights while maintaining criminal justice system functionality, establishing that the constitutional mandate protecting arrested persons constitutes an inviolable principle irreducible by investigative exigencies.
YASH HARI DIXIT
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALLIED SERVICES
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Startup Funding Laws in India Explained | Legal Guide by Advocate Sushila Ram Varma|” can be viewed at the link below