Police Officers Must Follow SC Mandate On Furnishing Grounds Of Arrest To Accused In Writing: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently said that every police officer in each case, before making any arrests, must inform the person to be arrested, in writing, the grounds of his arrest and only then proceed to effect arrest, as the same is the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court of India.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to one Pandurang Naik, who was arrested on February 22, 2024, in connection to a cheating case.

The judges noted that Naik was arrested on February 22 at 6:00 PM and only his mother was informed about his arrest. He was produced before a court for remand on the following day. He was subsequently charge-sheeted. However, Naik petitioned the bench seeking bail on the limited ground that the due procedure was not followed by the suburban Malad police station in Mumbai by giving in writing the grounds of his arrest.

The bench referred to the rulings of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and also in Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) cases, wherein the apex court has held that the grounds of arrest must be given by the arresting authority, to the person being arrested, in writing.

"The decisions of the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha which now is the law declared by the Apex Court, in the wake of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, bind all the Courts within the territory of India. Similarly, in terms of Article 144, since all the authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court, the law shall be followed by all concerned, including the Courts as well as the authorities exercising the power of arrest," the judges said in the July 18 judgment.

In the present case, the bench noted that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner in writing and even the column in the arrest form, which mandates the officer affecting the arrest to fill in details on whether the arrested person was informed of the grounds of his arrest and legal rights prior to being taken in custody, was not filled in the present case. It further noted that only the petitioner's mother was intimated about the arrest.

"The procedure followed by Respondent No.2 is evidently in violation of sub-clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and, since, this provision now stands interpreted by the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal, any arrest made thereafter must ensure compliance, by indicating the 'ground(s) of arrest in writing' expeditiously. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court having been declared to be law of land, binding on all courts of the country, by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, needless to state, must be followed by each and every one, including any officer/person/magistrate, before effecting arrest of a person, in any case, where his arrest is deemed necessary and this ground shall contain all such details in the hand of the Investigating Officer, which necessitated the arrest of the accused," the bench held.

Therefore, the bench ordered the release of the petitioner after declaring his arrest to be invalid.

Further, the judges asked Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar to furnish a copy of the present judgment to the Director General of Police (DGP).

"The DGP shall circulate the judgment copy to all the Additional Director General of Police and (ADGP) and Inspector General of Police (IGP), so that it is circulated through the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police to all the officers exercising the power of arrest within their jurisdiction and if it is deemed appropriate, the copy of the judgment shall also be uploaded on the website of the Police Department of the State of Maharashtra," the bench ordered.

Appearance:

Advocates Rishi Bhuta, Ashish Dubey, Ujjwal Gandhi, Neha Patil, Prateek Dutta, Saakshi Jha, Risha Rathod and Omer Farooq Khuraja appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sharmila Kaushik represented the State.

Advocates Sudeep Pasbola, Suyash Khose, Chinmay Godse, Mrunal Bhide and Rajan Gurnani appeared for the Intervenor.

Case Details: Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra (WPST/13835/2024)

Click here to Read/Download the judgment