Non-Communication of Written Grounds of Arrest to Accused Vitiates Arrest and Subsequent Remand Orders.

The Petitioner was arrested at 22:29 hours on May 21, 2026, following an FIR registered at Tardeo Police Station alleging various offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including rape, sexual exploitation, and extortion.

Upon production before the Magistrate on May 22, 2026, the Petitioner challenged the arrest’s legality, asserting that the "grounds of arrest" were not communicated as required by Section 47(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Magistrate granted police custody, reasoning that the presence of the Petitioner’s counsel fulfilled the purpose of legal aid.

Subsequent remands were granted until the Petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash the remand orders and declare the arrest illegal under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Petitioner was communicated with the grounds of arrest when he was apprehended or immediately thereafter?

2. Whether the arrest and subsequent remands to police and judicial custody were illegal due to non-communication of the grounds of arrest?

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest.

Section 47(1) of the BNSS, which requires communicating grounds of arrest to the accused.

Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS regarding reasons for arrest.

Precedent in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which distinguished "reasons for arrest" (formal parameters) from "grounds of arrest" (personal, basic facts necessitating arrest).

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, establishing that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent remands.

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, requiring grounds to be supplied in writing at least two hours prior to the remand production.

The Court found that while the police provided "reasons for arrest" (e.g., to prevent evidence tampering or fleeing), they failed to provide "grounds of arrest"—the specific facts and allegations justifying the detention.

The communication under Section 47(1)(2) merely stated that the victim filed a report and that the Petitioner was "involved," which the court deemed insufficient to allow the accused to defend himself against remand or seek bail.

The court rejected the State's "prejudice-oriented test" from State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, noting that procedural safeguards for personal liberty under Article 22(1) are mandatory and their violation cannot be cured by the mere presence of counsel or later explanations by the Magistrate.

The Magistrate’s failure to verify compliance with constitutional safeguards during the first remand further vitiated the proceedings.

The arrest and the subsequent remand orders dated May 22, May 25, and May 28, 2026, were quashed and set aside. The Petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith from judicial custody, though liberty was granted to the State to take recourse to law for a fresh arrest if a legal case is made out.