Failure to communicate written grounds of arrest under Section 47 BNSS vitiates arrest and subsequent remand.

The Petitioner was arrested on December 20, 2025 in connection with Plantsite PS Case No. 1139 of 2025 for allegedly running a fake lottery business.

He was charged under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 297(1), 318(4), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with Section 7(3) of the Lottery Regulation Act.

The Petitioner filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, asserting that his arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory statutory and constitutional requirements regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest.

The Investigating Officer (IO) filed an affidavit enclosing the arrest memo, which stated the reason for arrest as "the above noted accused person involved in the above noted case".

1. Whether the Arresting Officer complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of grounds of arrest.

2. Whether the failure to provide specific written grounds of arrest to the arrestee vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand, thereby entitling the Petitioner to bail.

The court applied Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, which mandates that every person arrested without a warrant must be informed forthwith of the particulars of the offence or other grounds for such arrest.

It further relied on Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.

The court followed the precedent in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which established that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee immediately or, at the latest, two hours before production in court, applicable to all arrests made after November 6, 2025.

The court also referenced Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another (2025) regarding the procedural response required from the state when non-compliance is alleged.

The court found that the arrest memo merely cited "involvement in the case" as the reason for arrest.

It reasoned that Section 47 of the BNSS makes it imperative for the officer to communicate specific "particulars" or "grounds," rather than a vague statement of involvement.

Since the Petitioner was arrested on December 20, 2025—well after the Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah—the requirement to provide written grounds was legally binding.

The court observed that the Arresting Officer failed to meet this mandate, noting that providing the particulars is a statutory and constitutional safeguard intended to protect the liberty of the individual.

This procedural lapse was deemed a fundamental error that vitiated the legality of the initial arrest and the subsequent judicial remand.

It concluded that this failure rendered the arrest and subsequent remand invalid.

Consequently, the bail application was allowed. The court ordered the Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹25,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the learned SDJM, Panposh.