Non-Communication of Written Grounds of Arrest Violates Article 22(1): Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court, in Shankesh Prithviraj Sanghvi v. The State of Maharashtra, declared the arrest and subsequent remand of an accused illegal due to the police's failure to provide written grounds of arrest as mandated by law.

Justice Shyam C. Chandak, sitting as a Single Judge Bench, quashed the remand orders passed by the Magistrate, emphasizing that the mere communication of 'reasons for arrest' or the presence of a lawyer during remand proceedings does not satisfy the constitutional requirements under Constitution of India, 1950.

Failure to Communicate 'Grounds of Arrest' Vitiates Custody

The Court clarified the distinction between 'reasons for arrest' which are general and formal parameters and 'grounds of arrest,' which must contain specific facts necessitating the arrest to allow the accused to defend themselves. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The communication under Section 47 (1) (2) of the BNSS addressed to the Petitioner was not sufficient or a substantive compliance of the legal requirement of informing the ‘grounds of arrest’... it is not fathomable that it had contained all the necessary details and the basic facts on which the Petitioner was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail."

Magistrate's Duty to Verify Constitutional Compliance

The High Court criticized the lower court for not verifying if the mandatory safeguards under Constitution of India, 1950 were followed. Relying on Prabir Purkayastha V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) ( "(2024) 8 SCC 254": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 73) and Vihaan Kumar V/s. State of Haryana and another ( "(2025) 5 SCC 799": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 206), the Court noted that a Magistrate must ascertain compliance with Constitution of India, 1950 before passing a remand order. The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The Arrest of the Petitioner in connection with the FIR bearing C.R.No.226/2026, dated 21.05.2026, registered with Tardeo Police Station is declared as illegal it being in violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) The Order of the Arrest of the Petitioner and the impugned remand Orders dated 22.05.2026, 25.05.2026 and 28.05.2026 passed by the 18th & 40th Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Girgaon Mumbai, are quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Petitioner is directed to be forthwith released from the judicial custody in connected with the FIR bearing C.R.No.226/2026, dated 21.05.2026, registered with Tardeo Police Station.

(iv) However, liberty is granted to the Respondent-State to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is made out.

(v) It is abundantly made clear that that none of the observations made above shall be treated as a comment on the merits of the case."

Background:

The Petitioner was arrested on May 21, 2026, following an FIR alleging rape, sexual exploitation, and extortion. While the police claimed the Petitioner was orally informed of the charges, the Petitioner contended that no written grounds were provided before he was produced for remand. The Court analyzed the transition from the old code to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and applied principles from Pankaj Bansal V/s. Union of India and others ( "(2024) 7 SCC 576": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 603) and Dr. Rajinder Rajan V/s. Union of India and another regarding the mandatory nature of Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court also referred to State of West Bengal V/s. Anwar Ali Sarkar to emphasize that procedural laws confer valuable rights that must be protected. The High Court rejected the State's argument based on State of Karnataka V/s. Sri Darshan, etc. ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 818), noting that the facts were distinguishable and that the lack of written grounds caused a denial of a fair opportunity to seek bail, as discussed in Mihir Rajesh Shah V/s State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2823 OF 2026
Case Title: Shankesh Prithviraj Sanghvi V/s. The State of Maharashtra
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, Mr. Mihir Nakrani, Mr. Suresh Jambhale, Adv. Londhe, Adv. Shubham Shingade and Mr. Vinod Shingade i/b. One Access
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State; Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Chinmay Gudse and Ms. Anjali Joshi i/b. Adv. Hrutik R. Chavan for the Intervenor.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 258