Summary
A father sought habeas corpus for his son, arrested by the Andhra Pradesh CID in a liquor-policy case, contending that the written grounds of arrest served at the time of arrest were an eyewash lacking material particulars and so violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS. Distinguishing Vihaan Kumar, where no grounds had been supplied at all, the Court examined the grounds actually furnished, held that they conveyed sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the accusation and satisfied Article 22(1) as explained in Vihaan Kumar, and dismissed the appeal while leaving the accused free to seek regular bail.
Issues
- Whether the arrest of the appellant's son was per se illegal, rendering his detention unlawful, on the ground that the grounds of arrest supplied to him were not meaningful and lacked material particulars.
- What standard of content the grounds of arrest must meet to comply with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Provisions considered
- Article 22(1), Constitution of IndiaNo arrested person may be detained without being informed as soon as may be of the grounds of arrest. Compliance requires communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds, meaningfully and in a language the arrestee understands; full details of the offence are not required, but the information must enable the arrestee to understand why he was arrested, to seek bail or habeas corpus and to prepare his defence. The grounds supplied here met that standard. (¶¶ 10, 15, 16, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaArrest curtails liberty under Article 21; procedure established by law includes Article 22(1), so non-communication of grounds as soon as may be after arrest violates Article 21 as well and vitiates the arrest. (¶¶ 9, 16, 18)
- Article 22(5) and 22(6), Constitution of IndiaPreventive-detention cases such as State of Bombay v. Atma Ram and Magan Lal Jivabhai concern the grounds of detention under clause (5); the present arrest for specific offences is governed by clause (1), though under both clauses information sufficient to enable a representation must be supplied. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Section 47, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023A police officer arresting without warrant must forthwith communicate full particulars of the offence or other grounds for arrest. As held in Vihaan Kumar regarding the corresponding Section 50 CrPC, this statutory requirement is in addition to, and cannot dilute, Article 22(1). (¶¶ 12, 16)
- Section 48, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The person making the arrest must forthwith inform a relative or friend of the arrest and place of custody; the Magistrate must satisfy himself of compliance. In this case the grounds of arrest were also served on the arrestee's father. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 18)
- Section 41 (Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Set out as the provision listing the cases in which police may arrest without warrant, against which the requirement of communicating grounds of arrest operates. (¶ 11)
Held
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana lays down that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional condition; the grounds must be communicated meaningfully, as soon as may be, so that the arrestee knows the basic facts on which he is arrested; the burden of proving compliance lies on the police when non-communication is alleged; non-compliance vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand orders, though not the investigation, chargesheet or trial; the grounds should also be given to family members; and the court must then order release forthwith notwithstanding statutory bail restrictions. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Vihaan Kumar dealt with an absolute failure to furnish grounds of arrest, the police relying only on a case-diary entry. Where, as here, written grounds were admittedly served at the time of arrest, the question is instead whether those grounds were meaningful and sufficient to give the arrestee a broad idea of the accusations and why he was being taken into custody. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- For Article 22(1) it is not necessary to furnish full details of the offence; the information must be sufficient for the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested and should be somewhat similar to a charge framed by the court. A person arrested without warrant must be told of the acts done by him which constitute the offence, not merely the law applicable to those acts. (¶¶ 28, 36)
- The object of communicating grounds of arrest is to enable the arrestee to apply for bail or habeas corpus, to prepare his defence, to explain any misunderstanding at once, and to guard against arrest on vague general suspicion by overzealous or despotic authority, as recognised in English and American common law and in the Constituent Assembly debates on draft Article 15A. (¶¶ 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The written grounds of arrest furnished to the arrestee and his father, which set out the alleged conspiracy to manipulate liquor procurement, his role in controlling orders for supply and collecting kickbacks, specific companies and persons involved, investment of proceeds and non-appearance to notices, could not be characterised as meaningless or an eyewash; the requirement in paragraph 21(b) of Vihaan Kumar was fulfilled and the arrest was not illegal. (¶¶ 14, 21, 37, 38)
Result
Criminal appeal dismissed; the arrested person left free to apply for regular bail, and any pending bail application to be heard at the earliest and decided in accordance with law; pending applications disposed of. The connected SLP (Crl.) No. 5691 of 2025 disposed of without deciding the legal issues raised, which are kept open.