Provisions Of S.47(1) Of BNSS Are Mandatory, Violation Will Render Arrest & Subsequent Detention Invalid: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the provisions of Section 47(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are mandatory and peremptory, and a violation of this provision can only result in a declaration that the arrest and subsequent detention are invalid.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice R Raghunandan and Justice K Manmadha Rao, was dealing with a writ petition filed by Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy, challenging the detention of her husband, who was arrested by the 4th and 5th respondents. He was produced before the Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, at 5:45 PM on February 25, 2025. The Magistrate noted that the remand report indicated that intimation of arrest was not given to the accused and that the remand report did not include all the sections mentioned in the alteration memo.
Subsequent records showed that the remand application was returned for compliance, with the police re-submitting it. It was conveyed that the police had attempted to serve a notice under Section 47(1) of BNSS to the detenue, who purportedly refused to accept it. The Magistrate recorded that the case record reflected that the accused was informed of the reasons for his arrest but had declined to receive the arrest intimation. The remand order also recorded the statement of the counsel appearing for the detenue that the arrest intimation was given to his relatives through WhatsApp, which was not proper intimation.
The petitioner had approached the High Court contending that the remand of the detenue by the Magistrate was in clear violation of the mandate of Section 47(1) of BNSS. Section 47(1) of BNSS states:
“47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”
The Court explained that a perusal of Section 47(1) suggests that any person who is arrested has to be “forthwith” informed of all the particulars for which he is being arrested or any other grounds for such arrest.
The Court noted that, based on the Magistrate's endorsement on the remand report, intimation under Section 47(1) of BNSS had not been served on the detenue, nor had any effort been made to provide such intimation. The Court further observed that, upon determining that the intimation of arrest under Section 47(1) of BNSS had not been provided, the Magistrate should have promptly ordered the release of the detenue. However, instead of doing so, the Magistrate chose to return the remand report for subsequent compliance. This decision, according to the Court, reflected a clear lack of application of mind. Substantiating this stance, the Court stated:
“Non-intimation, required under Section 47(1) of BNSS, would render any further detention of the person illegal. The word 'forthwith' makes it amply clear that intimation under Section 47(1) of BNSS has to be served at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter.”
Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the remand order issued by the Magistrate and ordered the release of the detenue.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 5444/2025
Case Name: Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Date of Judgment: 11.03.2025