Mandate of communicating 'grounds of arrest' to accused must be complied with at time of arrest or within reasonable time, failing which arrest and remand would be illegal.

COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

A common order is passed in these two criminal appeals since the facts arising for consideration as well as legal issues are common, and since both the appellants are co-accused in a charge sheet filed on 15.11.2024 in Crime No.173 of 2024 involving offences under Sections 34, 120B, 153A, and 153B of IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘UAPA’).

2. We have heard Mr.I.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. The submissions on behalf of the Appellants are that the chargesheet as above related to a total of seven accused, bail was rejected only in the cases of A2, A4 and A5, that the Appellants have not been furnished the grounds of arrest till date which violates the principles of natural justice and law as well as the ratio of several judgements of the Apex Court, and that A2 has been granted bail by judgment of the Supreme Court in Ahmed Mansoor and others v. The State represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police and another¹

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the Appellants have not been furnished the grounds of arrest. Neither is there any dispute in regard to the position that A2 in charge sheet dated 15.11.2024 where the Appellants are arrayed as A4 and A5, has been granted bail on 14.10.2025 by the Supreme Court.

5. The facts in brief are, that a charge sheet was laid as against seven accused in respect of the offences adumbrated in paragraph 1 supra. Bail had been sought by the Appellants and denied by the Principal

2025 Livelaw (SC) 2026 Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.16924 of 2024 vide order dated 26.06.2024. Thereafter, the Appellants had approached this Court seeking bail in Crl.O.P.No15683 of 2024, but had withdrawn the petition on 12.11.2024.

6. The present petitions have been instituted on account of the change in circumstances since the withdrawal of the earlier O.P.s, as investigations is now stated to be complete. One of the accused, A2 had suffered an adverse order from this Court as against which he had approached the Supreme Court. The primary ground pursued by that accused, as also by the Appellants before us, is the non- furnishing of grounds of arrest.

7. In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & anr.², the Su-

preme Court while holding that the grounds of arrest must be supplied to the person within a reasonable time, held as follows:

56. In conclusion, it is held that:

i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all

2 2025 INSC 1288 offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);

ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;

iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.

iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.

8. It is an admitted position that the appellants have not been furnished with the grounds of arrest till date. The Supreme Court, in Ahmed Mansoor³ has taken note of its earlier judgments in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India and Ors⁴ and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)⁵ c