Non-compliance with constitutional mandate to inform arrestee of grounds of arrest vitiates remand, entitling accused to bail.

The petitioner, A. Rama Subramaniyan, is an accused in Diglipur Police Station Case No. 24 of 2025, involving charges of murder, conspiracy, and disappearance of evidence under Sections 103(1), 61(2), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecution alleges the victim, a reporter, was brutally assaulted, killed, and his body burnt

The petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and 20 days

Despite the filing of a charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet listing a total of 98 witnesses, only one witness has been examined, and no progress has been made in the trial for seven months

The petitioner sought bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and the failure of authorities to inform him of the grounds of his arrest at the time of detention

1. Whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee, as mandated by the Constitution, renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail due to the slow progress of the trial and prolonged period of incarceration

Constitutional mandate regarding the rights of an arrestee, emphasizing that failure to inform a person of the grounds of their arrest vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand

Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India and another [SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3326 of 2026] and Mihir Rajesh Saha vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2026) 1 SCC 500], which establish that non-compliance with this mandate entitles the individual to be set free

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding bail provisions and the judicial principle that prolonged incarceration without trial progress justifies the grant of bail, even in heinous crimes, provided stringent conditions are met

The Court observed that while the charges against the petitioner are heinous, the procedural illegality of the arrest cannot be ignored. Following the ratio in Dr. Rajinder Rajan, the Court found that the Constitutional mandate of informing the petitioner of the grounds of arrest was not complied with, rendering the continued remand illegal

the Court analyzed the trial's progress and found an "inordinately long time" would be required to conclude proceedings, given that only one out of 98 witnesses has been examined in over a year

The Court reasoned that since the investigation is complete, further incarceration serves no useful purpose. To balance the gravity of the offense with the petitioner's rights, the Court determined that prosecution concerns regarding witness tampering or the need for voice samples and photographs could be addressed through restrictive bail conditions rather than continued detention

The Court allowed the bail application [CRM(M)/3/2026] and ordered the petitioner's release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties... subject to stringent conditions: the petitioner must not enter the North and Middle Andaman District, must report to Aberdeen Police Station ogni alternate day, must provide voice samples and photographs as required, and remains prohibited from contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence