Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Mihir Rajesh Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 2190 of 2025, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8704 of 2025
Decided On : 06-11-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 50 – [Now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 22(1) – Arrest – Legal prerequisites and safeguards – Genesis of informing grounds of arrest to a person flows from Constitutional safeguard provided in Article 21 of Constitution of India – Personal liberty includes procedural safeguards from abuse of power by State agencies and scrutiny of actions of State – No arrested person shall be detained without being informed of grounds of such arrest at the earliest opportunity – Manner in which such grounds are to be communicated must be efficacious and substantive which must fulfil essential objective and mandate of constitutional provisions – Mere oral communication of such grounds, in absence of any written document, renders compliance susceptible to factual disputes which often result into conflicting claims between arrested person and investigating agency – This conflict results in jeopardizing integrity of arrest process and thereby giving opportunity to accused person to claim immediate release. (Paras 17, 22 and 23)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 50 – [Now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 22(1) – Arrest – Legal prerequisites and safeguards – Failure to comply with requirement of informing grounds of arrest soon after arrest would render arrest illegal – It may not be practical to communicate grounds of arrest in writing in every situation, but if such a course is followed, controversy about non-compliance will not arise at all – There is a stigma attached to arrest which impairs reputation and standing of an individual in society – Stigma attached to arrest undermines a person’s social dignity and results into consequences that reverberate beyond individual but also extend to their social circle – Impacts of arrest are multidimensional and are not only limited to societal impact but also extend to physical and mental health of the person – Mental health issues like depression due to custodial confinement can be aggravated by inadequate and overcrowded conditions prevalent in prisons – Such conditions severely impinge upon fundamental rights of arrested person and curtail his dignity and personal liberty – Police Officer making arrest must be cautious while arresting a person and ought to satisfy himself after a reasonable investigation to justify person’s complicity and also effect as well as need of arrest – Arrested person must be well equipped with information not only about his arrest but reasons and grounds thereof prior to his production before Magistrate – If a person is not informed of grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, rendering arrest illegal – Constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, making it applicable to all offences including those under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023). (Paras 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39 and 40)
(C) Constitution of India – Articles 22 and 21 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 50 – [Now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Arrest – Legal prerequisites and safeguards – In cases where Police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for arrest, written grounds of arrest must be furnished to arrestee on his arrest – However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for police officer or other person making arrest to orally convey the same to person at the time of arrest – Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of arrestee before Magistrate for remand proceedings – Remand papers shall contain grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for information of Magistrate – Two-hour threshold before production for remand strikes judicious balance between safeguarding arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving operational continuity of criminal investigations. (Paras 52 and 53)
Facts of the case:
The main issue as raised by Appellants in these Appeals is violation of Appellants’ right under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and Section 50 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as appellants assert that they were not informed of grounds of their arrest in writing.
Findings of Court:
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8704 of 2025 was tagged with these Appeals and the Petitioner was granted an ad interim relief directing his release on bail vide Order dated 02.06.2025. Since there being no update with regard to effecting of service upon the Respondent nor any reply has been filed, the ad interim relief shall continue, and the petition be listed before an appropriate bench after obtaining the orders on the administrative side from Chief Justice of India.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
On 07.07.2024, a white BMW car driven at high speed by the appellant collided with the complainant's scooter from behind, resulting in the complainant's wife being dragged under the vehicle and succumbing to injuries, while the complainant sustained minor injuries; the driver fled without assistance. (!) FIR No. 378/2024 was registered at Worli Police Station under relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; the vehicle was identified via CCTV, and the appellant was arrested on 09.07.2024 after evidence linked him as the driver, including CCTV footage, alcohol consumption, appearance alteration, and Fastag usage. (!) The appellant was produced for remand, but challenged the arrest claiming non-communication of grounds in writing under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS (formerly Section 50 CrPC); the Bombay High Court upheld the arrest despite the lapse, citing the appellant's awareness of the offence and evasion. (!) (!) (!) (!) Appeals raised issues on mandatory furnishing of written grounds for offences under BNS, even in exigencies. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) requires informing the arrestee of grounds of arrest "as soon as may be" in all offences under all statutes, including BNS, as it flows from Article 21's protection of personal liberty. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Grounds must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands to enable effective consultation with counsel, opposition to remand, and bail application, avoiding disputes from mere oral communication. (!) (!) (!) (!) Where immediate written communication is impractical (e.g., flagrante delicto offences against body/property), oral conveyance suffices at arrest, followed by written grounds within a reasonable time and at least two hours before production for remand; remand papers must include grounds or explain delay. (!) (!) (!) Non-compliance renders arrest and remand illegal, entitling release, after which fresh remand application may be moved with explanation. (!) (!) (!) This balances arrestee rights with investigative needs; applies henceforth for clarity. (!)
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 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 (“Cr.P.C. 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.
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 Cr.P.C. 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 consider
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
