Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33510
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Mukul Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7584 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Subhash R., Sri. Manoj Kumar J.Y.
For the Respondents: Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, Sri. Channappa Erapa
The requirement to inform a person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutionally mandated procedure under Article 22(1); non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - BNSS, 2023 - Sections 47 and 48 - NDPS Act - Section 52 - Arrest of petitioner for an offence under NDPS Act questioned - Grounds of arrest not informed as required - Violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) led to quashing of arrest - Non-compliance with mandatory requirements renders arrest illegal; Courts are obligated to ascertain compliance before remand. (Paras 26.1 - 26.6)
(B) Requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest is necessary to empower the arrested individual to seek legal counsel and preserve their right to liberty. (Paras 26.1 - 26.6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged the arrest by stating that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him or his relatives as mandated, invoking Article 22(1) and constitutional rights.
Findings of Court:
The arrest was quashed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to conditions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the failure to communicate grounds of arrest constituted a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that non-compliance with Article 22(1) renders the arrest illegal, and that compliance must be established by the police.
Result: Petition allowed; arrest quashed and released on bail subject to conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for quashing arrest. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner argues non-compliance with statutory arrest procedures. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analysis emphasizes mandatory nature of informing grounds for arrest. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(i) To quash the arrest of petitioner on 23-05-2025 in Crime No.55/2025 of SJ Park Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act and Order of remand dated 24.05.2025 passed on the file of Hon'ble 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as per Annexure-D consequently release him from Judicial Custody forthwith, a direction to respondent to release him from Judicial Custody.
(ii) Set aside the order remanding the petitioner to judicial custody, consequently release him from Judicial Custody forthwith, a direct to Respondent to release him from Judicial Custody.
(iii) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP along with HCGP for respondents – State and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to de-facto complainant is dispensed with.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the requisite grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023 ( Section 50 and 50A of Cr.P.C.) and Section 52 of the NDPS Act had not been issued either to the petitioner and/or to his relatives, friends and nominees / disclosed persons and in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases ofPankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India – (2024) 7 SCC 576 , Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2024) 8 SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana – 2025 INSC 162 and Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others – 2025 INSC 768, the impugned arrest and remand of the petitioners to the judicial custody be quashed and concerned respondents be directed to release the petitioner, especially when the grounds of arrest as required under Section 52 of NDPS Act , which mandates furnishing of grounds of arrest had not been complied with by the respondents.
4. Learned Addl. SPP for respondents submits that grounds of arrest were not furnished / communicated to the petitioner as required in law and necessary orders in the instant case may be passed by this Court.
5. At this juncture, it would be necessary to extract the relevant provisions under the Constitution of India , BNSS 2023 and NDPS Act .
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India reads as under:-
“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases -
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023 reads as under:-
“ Section 47 . Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.
(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.”
“ Section 48 . Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to relative or friend.
(1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such
