Criminal PremiumSupreme Court of India

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra

(2025) INSC 1288

Decided: 6 November 2025

Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, Justice Augustine G. Masih

Grounds of arrestArticle 22(1) Constitution of IndiaSection 47 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023BNSS 2023Personal libertyWritten communicationRemand proceedingsArnesh Kumar principlesSection 47 BNSSArticle 22Section 436A BNSS

Key Issue / Question of Law

Whether Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India require that grounds of arrest be furnished in writing to every accused in every case, and what is the consequence of non-compliance, particularly in the context of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023).

Ratio Decidendi

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India imposes a mandatory and unexceptional duty on the State to provide grounds of arrest to every arrestee, regardless of the statute under which the arrest is made. Grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing in a language the arrestee understands. In exceptional cases where immediate written communication is impractical (e.g., flagrante delicto or risk of absconding), oral communication suffices at the time of arrest, but written grounds must be provided within a reasonable time and in any event no later than two hours before the arrestee is produced before the Magistrate for remand. Non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to be released, though the prosecution may file a fresh remand application after proper compliance.

Holding / Decision

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by clarifying the mandatory nature of furnishing written grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that grounds must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands. Where immediate written communication is impractical, oral communication at the time of arrest is permitted, but written grounds must be provided no later than two hours before production before the Magistrate for remand. Non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal. The Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in light of these principles.

Background & Facts

On 7 July 2024, a white BMW car driven at high speed collided with a scooter from behind. The impact threw the complainant aside, while his wife became trapped between the car's front left wheel and bumper and later succumbed to her injuries. The driver, alleged to be Mihir Rajesh Shah (the Appellant), absconded from the scene without rendering assistance or reporting the incident to authorities. He was apprehended on 9 July 2024, and investigation established him as the driver through CCTV footage and other incriminating evidence. During remand proceedings, the Appellant challenged the legality of his arrest on the ground that he was not furnished with the grounds of arrest in writing as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023). The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the arrest, reasoning that the Appellant was consciously aware of the gravity of the offence and had actively evaded the police. The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Statutes Involved

Article 22(1), Constitution of India — Mandates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice
Article 21, Constitution of India — Guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which forms the constitutional foundation for procedural safeguards in arrest
Section 47, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Corresponds to Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; requires every police officer making an arrest without warrant to communicate the full particulars of the offence and grounds of arrest to the arrested person
Section 11, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Provides guidance on remand procedures and the production of arrested persons before a Magistrate
Section 106, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Penalises causing death by rash or negligent act (corresponding to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Full Analysis

This comprehensive analysis covers the full ratio of the bench, the reasoning applied by the court, key precedents distinguished or relied upon, and practical implications for practitioners appearing before constitutional courts. The analysis also covers procedural aspects and the implications for pending matters in lower courts...

Premium Content

Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.

Subscribe — ₹99/month Already a subscriber? Sign in

Advocate's Note — Agarawal Associates

Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...

Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.

Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat

This judgment applies ONLY where an arrest is made without a warrant. If the arrest is pursuant to a warrant issued by a Magistrate, the requirements of Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India are satisfied by the warrant itself, and the two-hour written grounds rule does not apply separately. Additionally, the two-hour written grounds requirement applies only to arrests where it is practicable to provide written grounds; in cases of flagrante delicto (caught in the act) or imminent risk of absconding, oral communication at the time of arrest is permitted, but written grounds must still be provided within a reasonable time and no later than two hours before production before the Magistrate. If the arrestee is produced before the Magistrate more than two hours after the written grounds were provided, the arrest is valid; if produced less than two hours after, it is invalid.

Cases Cited

Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 INSC 170) — Relied upon for the proposition that arrest cannot be made in a routine manner and must be justified with reasons, as it causes irreversible damage to reputation and self-esteem.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014 INSC 463) — Relied upon for the proposition that arrest results in embarrassment, restricts freedom, leaves permanent scars, and that the power to arrest must be exercised cautiously.

Read Full Judgment

Courtroom Arguments

For Petitioner

Written Grounds of Arrest Are Mandatory — (2025) INSC 1288

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandate that grounds of arrest be furnished in writing in a language the arrestee…

For Respondent

Oral Grounds Sufficient in Exigent Circumstances — (2025) INSC 1288

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India requires that grounds be communicated 'as soon as may be', not in writing.

Found this useful? Share it with your colleagues.

One tap sends the case name, citation, key issue and link.

Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in