Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 705
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Rep. by, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4505 of 2025 [@ SLP [Crl.] No. 198 of 2025]
Decided On : 14-10-2025
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. A Velan, AOR Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prince Sing, Adv. Mr. Abdul Basith, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Ms. Kanika Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raja Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. G. Siddi Ramulu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adya Jha, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
The constitutional and statutory mandate to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest must be satisfied by the provision of such information in writing at the time of arrest. Verbal communication by a court during remand proceedings does not constitute valid compliance with this procedural requirement.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153A, 153B, 120-B, 34 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 18 - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22(1), 141 - Mandate of communicating grounds of arrest in writing - The requirement to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional and statutory obligation, and failing to provide these in writing at the time of apprehension renders the arrest procedure inadequate. (Paras 4, 10)
(B) Appeals - Scope - The Court is not required to examine the merits of the case when the fundamental procedure of arrest has been violated. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were apprehended and charged with various offenses. The core contention was that the appellants were not furnished with the grounds of their arrest in writing at the time of being taken into custody. The respondents argued that the jurisdictional court had explained these grounds during the remand proceedings, which they contended amounted to sufficient compliance with the legal mandate.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the explanation provided by the presiding judge during the remand stage is not a valid substitute for the mandatory requirement of providing written grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of apprehension. The court emphasized that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is linked to the fundamental right to liberty and effective legal representation.
Issues: Whether the verbal explanation of grounds of arrest by a court during remand proceedings constitutes sufficient compliance with the mandatory requirement of providing such information in writing at the time of an arrest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the constitutional and statutory mandate necessitates the communication of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused upon their apprehension. This procedure cannot be substituted by the court’s oral explanation during remand, as the latter is a formal judicial act, not a replacement for the investigating agency's obligation to inform the suspect of the specific facts necessitating their deprivation of liberty.
Result: Appeal allowed. The order of arrest and remand was set aside, with liberty granted to the respondents to take further legal action in accordance with the established procedure.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of criminal charges and procedural context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. necessity of communicating grounds of arrest to the accused. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest to the accused. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. failure to provide written grounds of arrest invalidates custodial remand. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final order disposing of the criminal appeal. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The appellants before us have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 153B, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13 and 18 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the ‘UAPA’).
3. The only issue for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants have been furnished with the grounds of arrest when they were apprehended and, if not, whether an explanation given by the jurisdictional Court at the time of remand, followed by the remand order which indicates that the grounds of arrest were explained, would be in sufficient compliance of Section 43B of the UAPA.
4. The issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra. In our considered view, the High Court has misconstrued the earlier judgments passed by this Court. On facts, there is no dispute that the grounds of arrest were not furnished, either to the appellants or to the persons arrested with them. On the contrary, the only contention on behalf of the respondents is that the grounds of arrest was duly explained by the Court at the time of remand, followed by furnishing of a copy of the same containing the grounds of arrest to the counsel who appeared with them. In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.- (2024) 7 SCC 576, the aforesaid aspect of mandatory information, in writing, of grounds of arrest has been explained by this Court as follows.
“45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that ED’s investigating officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfill compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR, immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained.”
5. The aforesaid position has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254 as stated under:
“45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
46. Now, coming to the aspect as to whether the grounds of arrest were actually conveyed to the appellant in writing before he was remanded to the custody of the investigating officer.
47. We
