The Court has stated that failure to do so violates Articles 21 and 22(1), rendering the arrest illegal and cannot be justified by later judicial remand. However, the top court recently observed that its earlier judgments, especially regarding the arrest of the accused booked under special laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), are being misused by the accused to demand such rights, even in obvious offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Read Also: “Grave Tragedy Being Exploited”: Congress Accuses Govt Of ‘Security Lapses’ In Pahalgam Attack

The Court noted that the accused in IPC cases were citing non-supply of grounds of arrest as a reason to file writ petitions before High Courts instead of filing bail petitions. The Court then stressed the need to strike a balance in the issue by making a demarcation between grounds of arrest for offenses under special statutes and those under the IPC. To find a balance, the court is likely to consider two questions:

1. Whether in every case, even when IPC offenses are there, is it necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to the accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest?

Read Also: ‘We’re Being Criticised For Interference’: SC Responds To Charges Of Judicial Overreach

2. Whether, in exceptional cases due to some exigencies, is it not possible to furnish the grounds of arrest before or after arrest? Whether, in such cases, arrest will be vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?

The court decided to consider these points while hearing a batch of petitions, including the one filed by Mihir Shah, the accused in the Worli BMW hit-and-run case in July 2024. The accused had argued that he was not informed about the grounds of arrest either before his arrest or at the time. Appearing for the amicus curiae, Advocate Shri Singh argued that a distinction must be made between general crimes and offenses under special statutes.

Notably, the court gave an example, noting that if a person kills ten people and then states that grounds of arrest should be supplied before being taken into custody. It then pointed out that the judgements are being misused. The court finally said it was issuing a notice on the matter to settle the legal position.