Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2656
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Vijayakumar, J.
Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy - Petitioner
Versus
State Rep.by The Inspector of Police Keelaiyur Police Station - Respondent
Crl.OP(MD).No.1636 of 2026
Decided On : 07-07-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr.K.Subburaj
For the Respondent:Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Communication of arrest grounds to the accused must be in writing, but intimation to relatives under Section 48 of BNSS does not strictly require a written format; electronic communication via phone or SMS is legally sufficient.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged a remand order under Section 528 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, having been arrested for offenses under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1), and 25 of the NDPS Act for allegedly smuggling 200 kg of ganja. The petitioners contended that the arrest memo was defective as it lacked specific grounds of arrest and that the mandatory intimation to relatives was not provided in writing. The court examined whether the failure to provide written intimation to relatives and the nature of the arrest memo vitiated the remand order. The court reasoned that while grounds of arrest must be communicated, the arrest memo in this case was handwritten and explicitly contained the grounds of arrest. Regarding intimation to relatives, the court held that Section 48 of the BNSS requires information to be given but does not mandate that such intimation be in writing, thus phone calls and SMS are sufficient. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in this petition and this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
ORDER :
R. Vijayakumar, J.
The present petition has been filed by Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No. 143 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeking to set aside the order of remand passed by the Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kilvelur on 04.07.2024.
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act . They were arrested at 9.00 a.m on 04.07.2024 and were produced before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kilvelur and they were remanded to judicial custody under the impugned order. This impugned remand order is put to challenge in the present petition on the following grounds:
a).The arrest memo did not contain full particulars and therefore, it is defective.
b)The arrest intimation was not given in writing to the family members/relatives of the accused persons.
c)According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the arrest memo is in a printed format and it does not contain the grounds of arrest. Therefore, it is defective in nature.
(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 162 ( Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another ) and submitted that mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest. He further contended that the grounds of arrest should not only be communicated to the arrested person but also to his friends and relatives.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 INSC 414 (Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and submitted that the “reasons for arrest” is different from “grounds of arrest” therefore, according to him, the grounds of arrest should contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest should be informed in writing to the family members also, otherwise the order of remand is invalid in the eye of law.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1318 ( Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh ) and contended that non furnishing of grounds of arrest would vitiate the arrest and the order of remand. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 INSC 866 ( Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India and others ) and contended that when grounds of arrest has not been furnished to the arrest person in writing, that would vitiate the order of remand. He also relied up the same judgment and contended that intimation of arrest should be furnished to the family members.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 1288 ( Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another ) and contended that informing the arrestee about the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all the offences and grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language in which she or he understands. He further submitted that the non-compliance of the above said condition would make the arrest and the subsequent remand order vitiated and the accused person shall be set free.
7.Relying upon the above said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the arrest intimation has not been given in writing to the family members. That apart, the grounds of arrest, though served upon the petitioners, it does not contain the grounds of arrest and therefore defective in nature. It is only a printed format and hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of remand.
8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the arrest memo clearly indicates that all of them were arrested while they were car
