Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN
RAJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
The State rep by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.R.C.Nos.2494 & 2304 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Karthikeyan
For the Respondents: Dr.C.E.Pratap

The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) to communicate grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory; failure renders arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 22(1) - Communication of grounds of arrest - Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS, 2023) - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), 25, 29(1) - BNSS, 2023 - Sections 438 r/w 442 - Arrest and remand - Mandatory requirement to furnish grounds of arrest in writing - Non-compliance renders arrest illegal and remand invalid - Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine 2356) followed.

(B) Constitutional law - Fundamental right - The mandate under Article 22(1) that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a binding constitutional safeguard - The grounds must be communicated in writing and in a language the arrestee understands - Failure to do so violates Article 21 and Article 22(1) - Even if oral communication is made, written grounds must be supplied at least two hours before remand proceedings.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners (accused Nos.5, 6, 9 and 10) were arrested on 12.07.2025 in connection with Crime No.494 of 2025 for offences under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that while accused No.1 was found in possession of methamphetamine, and accused Nos.2 and 3 in possession of LSD and ganja, no contraband was seized from the petitioners. They were produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody on 13.07.2025. The petitioners challenged the remand orders on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to them in writing.

Findings of Court:
The counter affidavit filed by the respondent police did not state that the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing; it only vaguely referred to informing the petitioners. Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Mihir Rajesh Shah, the court held that the constitutional right under Article 22(1) was violated because the grounds were not furnished in writing. Consequently, the arrest was illegal and the subsequent remand unjustified. The court set aside the remand order and directed the release of the petitioners on bail with conditions. However, the court clarified that the respondents could seek fresh remand after complying with the requirement to supply written grounds.

Issues: (i) Whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether such non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal?

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest is mandatory and unexceptional. The grounds must be communicated in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, to enable him to defend himself and challenge the arrest or seek bail. If this requirement is not complied with, the arrest is illegal, and the remand order based on such arrest cannot stand. (Paras 6, 7, 8 of judgment; citing Mihir Rajesh Shah paras 33-42 and 55-56).

Result: Criminal Revision Cases allowed. The impugned remand orders set aside. The petitioners shall be released forthwith on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each, and other conditions as specified. The respondents may seek fresh remand after complying with the constitutional mandate as laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case. (Para 10).

COMMON ORDER

The above Criminal Revision Cases have been filed challenging the orders of remand dated 13.07.2025 passed as against the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee in Crime No.494 of 2025. Crl.RC.No.2494 of 2025 has been filed by Accused Nos.5 and 6 and Crl.RC.No.2304 of 2025 has been filed by Accused Nos.9 and 10.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2025 at about 18.15 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station received a secret information about the illegal sale of LSD Stamp, Methamphetamine and Ganja; that based on the intimation, the Sub- Inspector of Police, along with his team went to the place of occurrence i.e., Maduravoyal Kammatchiamman 2^nd Street Junction; that A1 was found in possession of 5.25 grams of Methamphetamine in his Royal Enfield two- wheeler, which was seized along with his bike; that thereafter, the respondents have arrested two other accused A2 and A3; that on their confession, they went to the house in which the petitioners along with the other accused were found; that A2 was found in possession of 0.81 grams of LSD besides a cash of Rs.50,000/-; that A3 was found in possession of 350 grams of Ganja; and that thereafter the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.07.2025, pursuant to the impugned remand orders.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioners in writing as mandated in the Constitution and in Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., which is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments and even in the latest judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2356.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed counter affidavits in both the cases sworn in by the Inspector of Police, T4 Maduravoyal Police Station and would submit that the respondent Police had followed the mandatory procedures for arrest; that the petitioners were informed of the grounds of arrest and since the respondent has duly complied with the Constitutional and Statutory requirements, the learned Magistrate was justified in remanding the petitioners and therefore, the impugned orders are not liable to be set aside.

5. It is seen from the record that the FIR was registered on 13.07.2025 for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii),(A) 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. All the petitioners and the six other accused were named in the FIR. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 was intercepted at Maduravoyal Kammatchiamman Second Street Junction at Koyambedu and was arrested at 18.30 hours and was found in possession of 5.25 grams of Methamphetamine; that on his confession it was revealed that the petitioners and the other accused were in the habit of using Narcotic drugs and were also selling the same to known persons; that thereafter the investigation team went to the house of A1 where the petitioners along with the other accused were found; and that A2 was found in possession of 0.81 grams of LSD and A3 was found in possession of 350 grams of Ganja.

6. The counter specifically does not state that the grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioners in writing. The counter vaguely refers to informing the petitioners of the grounds of arrest. Admittedly, no contraband was seized from the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case [cited supra] after referring to the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:

“33. The mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is unambiguous and clear in nature, it provides that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as they can be. It further provides that the arrested person has the right to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This constitutional mandate has been effectuated by the legislature in Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHANRAJ KUMAR – AppellantVersusThe State rep by Inspector of Police – RespondentCrl.R.C.Nos.2494 & 2304 of 2025

The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) to communicate grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory; failure renders arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN
RAJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
The State rep by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.R.C.Nos.2494 & 2304 of 2025