[Cites 37, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ankita Ranjit Nimbalkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 4 February, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-AS:6097-DB
J-WP-59332025.odt
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5933 OF 2025
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.25111 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5933 OF 2025
Gaurav Shahajirao Kakade ....Petitioner
V/S
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents
Mr.Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Ranjeet Pawar, Bhargav
Pataskar and Amar Gadhave for the Petitioner.
Mr.Tanveer Khan, APP for the State.
Mr.Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate a/w Shailesh Chawan,
Hrishikesh Awhad and Amar Kale for the Intervenor.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ
RESERVED ON : 10th DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :
1 On being arraigned as an accused in CR No.283/2024
registered by Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station invoking Section
302, 307, 143, 147, 352, 504, 50 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code
RAJSHREE KISHOR
read with Section 3, 25 and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959, the
MORE
KISHOR Date:
MORE 2026.02.05
20:26:24 +0530
J-WP-59332025.odt
Petitioner came to be arrested on 28/06/2024 and since then he
is in judicial custody and lodged in Yerwada central jail.
The Petitioner seek issuance of writ of Habeas Corups or
any other appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India alongwith Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 528 of the BNSS), thereby
declaring arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and violation of his
right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Petitioner, therefore, seek his release from custody,
upon a declaration that the arrest was not in accordance with law.
2 We have heard the learned senior counsel Mr.Aabad Ponda
for the Petitioner. The senior counsel Mr.Manoj Mohite has
marked appearance for the intervenor, who is complainant, at
whose insistence the subject CR was registered at Wadgaon
Nimbalkar Police Station, in which the Petitioner was arraigned
as an accused. She is also wife of the deceased Ranjit Eknath
Nimbalkar, who seek intervention with an intention to bring on
record the true and correct facts and to point out to the Court, the
involvement of the accused and as to why he is not entitled to the
reliefs sought in the Petition.
3 We have also heard Mr. Tanveer Khan, the learned APP for
the State, who would placed reliance on the Affidavit filed by
Assistant Police Inspector on 01/12/2025 and who has strongly
opposed the reliefs in the Petition.
J-WP-59332025.odt
4 On hearing the respective counsel, we deem it appropriate
to issue Rule, which is made returnable forthwith.
5 Before we appreciate the contentions revolving around the
arrest of the Petitioner, we must briefly refer to the case of the
prosecution which is now pending before the Sessions Court,
Baramati, in form of Sessions Case No.190/2024, arising out of
the FIR lodged by the complainant on 28.06.2024.
The complainant alleged that the deceased Ranjeet
Nimbalkar, her husband was fond of bullock cart racing and was
a proud owner of two bullocks viz. Sarja and Sundar who were
kept in the custody of Vitthal Chavan for catering to them, he
being located in Taluka Khatav, District Satara. Sarja was
purchased one year ago from Gautam Kakade of Nimbut
(Accused No.1), for a sum of Rs.61,00,000/-. Both the bullocks
had participated in the racing and had won the races.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 24/06/2024, Gautam
Kakade visited Ranjeet with an intention to purchase his Bull
(Sundar) and conveyed to him that he alongwith Santosh Todkar
wanted to strike a deal. The transaction was settled for
Rs.37,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was handed over
as earnest money and the balance was agreed to be paid on
27/06/2024. It was also agreed that the transaction would be
reduced into writing on a stamp paper.
The bull was carried with him by Accused No.1 and the
complainant was a witness to the said act.
6 On 27/06/2024 at about 8.00 a.m. Ranjeet and Santosh
J-WP-59332025.odt
Todkar went to approach Gautam Kakade at Nimbut to finalise
the transaction and he returned home at 2.00 p.m. and the
complainant was informed by her husband that without making
payment of balance amount Gautam Kakade had asked him to put
signature on a stamp paper and which he refused and he had
called him in the evening.
As per the version of the complainant, on 27/06/2024 at
around 9.00 p.m. she alongwith her husband, her daughter aged
10 months alongwith one relative Vaibhav Kadam and his friend
proceeded to village Nimbut in a vehicle. Santosh Todkar was
waiting at Village Lonand, who questioned the deceased as to why
he did not sign the papers despite receiving the whole amount
and he was told that he had received only Rs.5,00,000/- and the
balance amount is not received.
Thereupon, Santosh Todkar narrated that Accused No.1 had
told him that the entire amount was paid and the transaction was
completed.
Since Accused No.1 had called the deceased to receive the
balance consideration, she accompanied her husband and they
reached the house of Accused No.1 at 11.00 p.m.; and while they
were sitting in the courtyard, he asked her husband as to why he
had told Santosh Todkar that the balance amount was not paid
and he said that he would pay the balance amount in the next
morning, but asked her husband to put his signature on some
papers, which he refused and he also warned him that if he was
not desirous of completing the transaction, he should refund the
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and return the bullock and thereafter she
alongwith her husband and the persons accompanying them
J-WP-59332025.odt
proceeded towards their vehicle. At this moment, the accused
made a phone call and called his brother on the spot, which is the
Petitioner. As per the case of the prosecution, the Petitioner
(Accused No.2) and three unknown boys arrived at the spot and
they threatened the deceased that he should not make any
dispute about the transaction and the present Petitioner is alleged
to have uttered that he would kill him, but will not permit him to
carry the bull and he fired a shot by a pistol in his hand by
pointing it on the head of Ranjeet, who fell down.
As per the complainant, with the help of persons present
there, she carried her husband at Sai-Seva Hospital, Waglewadi
and thereafter in an ambulance to Baramati. This resulted in
registration of offence against the accused persons by invoking
Section 307 of the IPC, but since during the course treatment her
husband succumbed to the gunshot injuries, Section 302 of the
IPC was added in the subject FIR.
7 In connection with the aforesaid accusations, the Petitioner
who was arraigned as accused No.2 was arrested on 28/06/2024
at 6.32 p.m. and produced before the Magistrate and he was
remanded to police custody till 01/07/2024 and, thereafter, to
judicial custody. On completion of investigation the charge sheet
was filed on 24/09/2024 which was submitted in Sessions Case
No.190/2024.
8 It is the claim of the Petitioner that his arrest is in gross
violation of fundamental rights and violation of constitutional
protection guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
J-WP-59332025.odt
India and Section 50(1) read with Section 50A(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. He, therefore, approached the
Sessions Court securing his release on the said ground, but by
order dated 17/05/2025 his application was rejected.
9 The learned senior counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda, representing
the Petitioner urged before us that the arrest of the Petitioner is
in violation of the constitutional mandate under the Constitution
of India and he would submit that it is mandatory for the
investigating agency to communicate the grounds of arrest to the
accused and it is his fundamental and constitutional right to know
on what ground he has been arrested. It is specifically urged by
the learned senior counsel that the Petitioner was not informed
about the grounds of arrest in writing or orally by the officer who
arrested him, at the time of his arrest or thereafter.
Reliance is placed by Mr.Ponda on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra
& Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.2195/2025), where it is held that it is
the constitutional mandate to inform the arrestee of the grounds
of arrest and it is mandatory in all offences under all statutes
including the offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now BNS,
2023).
By inviting our attention to the directions contained in Para
56 of the law report, Mr. Ponda would submit that it is held by the
Apex Court in the latest decision that in case(s) where the
arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of
arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it shall be so done orally
and grounds of arrest be communicated in writing within a
J-WP-59332025.odt
reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to
production of the arrestee in remand proceedings before the
Magistrate. According to Mr.Ponda, it is reiterated by the Apex
Court that failure to comply with the requirement in law, the
arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the
person will be entitled to be set at liberty.
10 Reliance is also placed by Mr.Ponda on the decision in
Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr.1 which has under-
scored the judicial commitment in upholding constitutional
protection against arbitrary arrest and intention and according
to him, the said decision has set a precedent to the effect that the
investigating agency/police officer effecting arrest of any person
in connection with any cognizable offence without the warrant,
must provide specific and actionable reasons for an individual
arrest, beyond citing broad provisions of law and according to
him, a clear dictum flows from the said decision, which make it
imperative for the law enforcement agencies to exercise greater
diligence in communicating the precise grounds of arrest in order
to avoid unlawful detention claims. According to him, the
decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra) further reinforces the right to
legal recourse through Habeas Corpus Petitions, empowering
individuals to challenge legality of their detention effectively.
Mr. Ponda would draw benefit from the observations of their
Lordships in Vihaan Kumar (supra), which has clearly held that
the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be
meaningful so as to serve the objects of he being in a position to
1 (2025)5 SCC 799
J-WP-59332025.odt
effectively exercise the right to consult an Advocate and defend
the remand proceedings.
Apart from relying upon the decision in case of Pankaj
Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors.2 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)3, the principle laid down in Kasireddy Upender
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.4 is also invoked by Mr.
Ponda and in particular the observations in Para 26 and 27 of the
said decision.
According to Mr. Ponda, the Respondent has not produced
any single document to submit that the grounds of arrest were
communicated or informed to him in any manner at the time of
his arrest or even as per the latest position two hours prior to his
production in remand proceedings. He would submit that the
requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of
arrest is not an empty formality, but a mandatory constitutional
requirement.
Inviting our attention to the Arrest Form and in specific
column No.8 he would submit that there is no mention of any
time when the grounds of arrest are communicated to the
Petitioner, there is only mention of date which is clearly reflective
of non application of mind at the time of filling of Arrest/
Surrender Form and the casual approach adopted by the
arresting officer. Further, according to him, there is no written
communication regarding the grounds of arrest anywhere being
placed in the entire charge sheet and, therefore, before
remanding him to custody without adhering to the constitutional
2 (2024) 7 SCC 576
3 (2024) 8 SCC 254
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228
J-WP-59332025.odt
and statutory mandate , the custody of the Petitioner and its
continuation, according to the learned senior counsel is illegal.
Mr.Ponda has also urged that there is significant different
in the 'grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest'. The reasons of
arrest according to him are formal parameters, viz. to prevent an
accused from committing any further offence or that his arrest
is necessary for proper investigation or to prevent the accused
from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or
tampering with such evidence in any manner or to prevent the
arrested person from making inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating
Officer. According to him, these reasons would commonly apply
to any person arrested on the accusation of commission of a
crime, whereas, the 'grounds of arrest' on the other hand would
contain all such details in the hands of the Investigating Officer
which necessitated the arrest and the grounds informed in
writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts, on
which he is arrested, so as to provide him an opportunity of
defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail and
these grounds would invariably be personal to the accused and
cannot be equated with 'reasons of arrest' which are general in
nature.
The Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Judgment
delivered by this Court when Ajit Kisan More, the co-accused
arrested in the same FIR and who had approached this Court by
filing a Writ Petition No.3119/2025, Ajit Kisan More vs. State of
Maharashtra, raised a ground that the reasons of arrest were
J-WP-59332025.odt
not communicated to him in writing when he was arrested on
01/07/2024. It is the case of the Petitioner that by relying upon
the decision of the Apex Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy
(supra) and also the decision in case of Vihaan Kumar (supra)
the Writ Petition was allowed and arrest of the Petitioner was
declared as illegal.
11 The learned APP Mr.Tanveer Khan has opposed the reliefs
sought in the Petition and as regards the contention of the
Petitioner that grounds of arrest were not communicated, it is his
submission that the investigating officer arrested the present
Petitioner on 28/06/2024 at 6.32 hours and one more accused
Shahaji Kakade on the same day at 13.33 hours. He would rely
upon the following assertion in the Affidavit, affirmed by the
Assistant Police Inspector, Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station.
"6. I say that during the course of investigation, the investigating
agency arrested the Petitioner on 28.06.2024 at 06.32 hrs. and
personally informed him grounds of his arrest, and the said fact
mentioned in Station Diary dated 28.06.2024 at 06.32 hrs. mentioned
at Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune Rural, Dist.: Pune and
accordingly, Case Diary to that effect was made on 28.06.2024 vide
Case Diary No.1. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit A Colly are
the copy of the Station Dairy dated 28.06.2024 and the Case Diary
No.1 dated 28.06.2024. His arrest was immediately informed to his
Father namely Shahaji Mugutrao Kakade and Arrest Panchnama to
that effect was made and the said Arrest Panchanama was also signed
by Panchas namely Dadasaheb Suresh Kumbhar and Dilip Shankar
Hirve. The fact that the accused was informed about of arrest was also
mentioned in the Arrest Panchanama, after the arrest of the Petitioner
was intimated to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Baramati Division, Dist.:
Pune by the investigating agency immediately. The name of the
Petitioner was entered into Arrest Register. Apart from that, prior to
Petitioner's arrest, the necessary medical examination was also
conducted in accordance with law. I further say that even during the
course of his arrest, the basic necessities were also provided to him i.e.
Food, Clothing and Shelter. I further say that even the Petitioner was
J-WP-59332025.odt
also produced within 'statutory period of 24 hours, before the Learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati, Dist.: Pune on 28.06.2024
alongwith the copy of the Remand Report dated 28.06.2024. I further
say that even the copy of the Remand Report dated 28.06.2024 was
also given to the Petitioner who acknowledged the same.
According to Mr.Khan the Petitioner was produced before
the JMFC Baramati on 28/06/2024 and in the first remand the
Petitioner did not raise an issue regarding compliance of any of
the provision and the Remand Application was opposed on
merits, leading to assumption that the Petitioner was aware of the
grounds of his arrest and the accused was remanded to Police
custody. Thereafter, he was produced before the JMFC, Baramati,
on 01/07/2024, and then on 02/07/2024 when he was granted
magisterial custody. According to Mr. Khan on completion of
investigation the charge sheet has been filed and the case of the
Petitioner is pending for trial.
The Affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer is responded
to by the Petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit where he
reiterated his earlier stand when he deposed thus :-
"10. I further say that, the station dairy dated 28.06.2024 and Arrest
Form dated 28.06.2024 are contemporary documents which are shown
to be prepared by the Investigating Agency during the alleged arrest.
When there is absolutely no whisper about the communication of
grounds of arrest to me either orally or in writing in the said two
documents, there is no question of the same appearing in Case Dairy
which is prepared by Mr. Rahul Ghuge at the end of that day, and which
is a narration of investigation alleged to be conducted by the officer for
that day. Therefore, when the alleged real time documents itself do not
contain anything about communication of grounds of arrest in oral or
in writing, it is quite surprising as to how same appears in the case
dairy. Thus it is apparent that an afterthought document is created and
fabricated merely to create illegal evidence against the Petitioner. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihan Kumar has held that entries in case
dairies cannot be relied upon unless there is any contemporary record
supporting the entries in Case Dairy.
J-WP-59332025.odt
11. I say that, I was also not served with copy of Remand Report as is
contented in the Affidavit in Reply and thus, it is incorrect to say that I
have acknowledged the supply of the said Remand Report. It is not
correct to say that I was aware about the grounds for arrest at the time
of my remand proceedings.
12.It is a matter of record that no where in the Remand Report it is
even written that, the grounds of arrest have been communicated to
me orally or in writing. Nor is it informed to the court about the same.
On perusal of the Remand order it can be seen that, there is no mention
about the Ld. Magistrate, Baramati, ascertaining about the grounds of
arrest being provided to me orally or in writing, it has only ascertained
whether there was ill treatment or not. Thus the contention that during
my remand I was aware about the grounds of arrest is factually
incorrect and a misleading statement."
12 The learned senior counsel Mr.Manoj Mohite representing
the intervenor would join hands with Mr. Khan in opposing the
reliefs sought in the Petition and he would place reliance upon
the decision of this Court in Tirupati Vilas Podalwar vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.761/2024) as well as
the decision in case of Naushad Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (Cr. Writ Petition No. 6057/2025) where the
Petitioners were held entitled for the benefit of non compliance of
the statutory mandate. He would also place reliance upon the
decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri
Darshan etc.5, where it is held that though communication of
grounds of arrest is guaranteed and constitutional and statutory
framework mandated that arrested person must be informed of
the grounds of arrest, but according to him, it do not prescribe a
specific form or insist upon written communication in every case
and in this decision it is held as below :-
"20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was reiterated that
Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest
5 2025 Livelaw SC 801
J-WP-59332025.odt
grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed
that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant
amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal
decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an
inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial
approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining
alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does
not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable
prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend."
13 The learned senior counsel Mr. Ponda representing the
Petitioner has invoked the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Pankaj Bansal
(supra) and the subsequent authoritative pronouncements from
the highest court of this country, where it has recognized the
significance of communication of the 'grounds of arrest' to the
arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the
basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted to him in the
language he understands.
Though in Pankaj Bansal (supra), the offence involved was
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA
Act) and the question arose in regard to the compliance of the
mandate of communicating the 'grounds of arrest', with
reference to Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act, in order to give true
meaning and purpose to the constitutional and statutory mandate
of Section 19(1) of the PMLA, of informing the arrested person of
the 'grounds of arrest', the Apex Court directed that it would be
necessary that a copy of the written 'grounds of arrest' is
furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and
without exception. In the facts of the case, holding that the
J-WP-59332025.odt
Investigating Officer of the Enforcement Directorate, merely
reading out or permitted reading of the 'grounds of arrest' of the
Appellant and leaving it at that, which was also disputed by the
Appellant, was held to be not adequate compliance of the
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section
19(1) of the PMLA Act, as a result of which the arrest was held to
be illegal and as a consequence thereof his remand to the custody
of Enforcement Directorate and thereafter to judicial custody
was also found to be not sustainable.
In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), a decision by the Supreme
Court followed by the decision in Pankaj Bansal (supra), the Apex
Court, offered a wider scope with reference to its earlier decision
in case of Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra6, which held that
communication of the 'grounds of detention' to the detenue in
writing and in the language he/she understands is imperative
and essential to provide an opportunity to the detenue to make
an effective representation against detention and in case, such
communication is not made the order of detention would stand
vitiated, as the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India would stand violated.
Drawing the analogy from the aforesaid decision, it is held
that the language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the
of the Constitution of India regarding communication of the
grounds is exactly identical and neither of the constitutional
provisions require that 'grounds of arrest' or 'detention' as the
case may be, must be communicated in writing. The
interpretation to this important facet of fundamental right, while
6 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117
J-WP-59332025.odt
examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India,
was, therefore, held to ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate
the 'grounds of arrest' is concerned. With no hesitancy, their
Lordships of the Apex Court have reiterated that the requirement
to communicate the 'grounds of arrest' or the 'grounds of
detention' in writing to a person arrested in connection with an
offence or to a person placed in detention as provided under
Article 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct
and cannot be breached in any situation and non compliance of
the constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead
to the custody or detention being rendered illegal.
Highlighting a thin line of distinction between the 'reasons
of arrest' and 'grounds of arrest' , it was spelt out that the
'reasons of arrest' in the Arrest Memo are purely formal
parameters viz. to prevent accused from committing any further
offence, for proper investigation of offence, to prevent the
accused from causing the evidence to disappear or tampering of
such evidence, or preventing the arrested person in making
inducement, threat or promise, so as to dissuade him from
disclosing the facts to the Court or Investigating Officer. However,
the 'grounds of arrest' would be required to contain all such
details in the hand of Investigating Officer which necessitated
the arrest of an accused.
It was informed that the 'grounds of arrest' shall be
informed in writing to the arrested accused as it would apprise
him of the basic facts on which he/she was being arrested, which
would provide him/her an opportunity of defending himself/
J-WP-59332025.odt
herself against custodial remand and to seek bail.
14 The two decisions received a further expansion with clarity
in Vihaan Kumar (supra), when the right guaranteed to an
arrested person not to be detained in custody without being
informed, as soon as may be the grounds of such arrest in terms
of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, was held to be a
mandate flowing from the constitutional provision. It was,
therefore, held that any infringement of this fundamental right
would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. However, holding
that once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution of India is curtailed and, therefore, he is
entitled to avail the benefit of the provision in form of Sub-clause
(1) of Article 22 of the Constitution which give him a right on his
arrest, to consult an Advocate of his choice and right to be
defended and if the grounds of arrest are not communicated to
him, he will not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult
an Advocate. On failure to comply with the requirement of
informing the grounds of arrest as may be after the arrest, it is
held that the arrest is vitiated and the person arrested, cannot
remain in custody even for a second. However, it was clarified
that the mode and method of communication must be such that
the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved as the
communication of the grounds to the arrestee effectively in the
language which he understands, will facilitate his production in
the Court and defend of the remand.
In Vihaan Kumar (supra) though the requirement of
informing the person arrested of the 'grounds of arrest' is held as
J-WP-59332025.odt
mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India and non compliance with the same was held to be
violation of the fundamental rights, resulting into the orders of
remand passed by the criminal court being vitiated, it is held that
it is not the mandate of Article 22(1) to communicate the
grounds in writing, but the mode of conveying the 'grounds of
arrest' must necessarily be meaningful so that it serve the
intended purpose.
When a person is arrested without a warrant and the
'grounds of arrest' are not informed to him, as soon as may be,
after the arrest, it was held that it will amount to violation of his
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well and when
the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person
or after arresting him, it will also violate fundamental right to
liberty under Article 21 and the arrest is liable to be rendered
illegal.
15 In the facts of the case, in absence of communication of
grounds to the Appellant Vihaan Kumar (supra), at the time of
his arrest he was directed to be released and set at liberty though
it was held that his release shall not affect the merits of the
charge-sheet and the pending case.
16 In Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the question which
deserve consideration of their Lordships was, whether arrest of
the Appellant's son could be said to be perse illegal for want of
supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest and the
question was answered in the backdrop of the provisions in form
J-WP-59332025.odt
of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as well as the
relevant provisions relating to arrest in form of Section 41 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 47 of the BNSS, casting a
responsibility of informing the person arrested of the grounds of
his arrest and his right of bail.
With heavy reliance being placed upon the path breaking
judgment of this Court in case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) with its
profound implications for implementation of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India, the principles flowing from the said decision
were culled out by emphasizing that informing the person
arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality, but a
constitutional mandate and failure to comply with the
requirement of informing the 'grounds of arrest' as soon as may
be after the arrest, will vitiate the arrest and entitle the arrestee
for his release. The principle that when an arrestee pleads
before a Court that the 'grounds of arrest' were not
communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article
22(1) is on the police authorities, was also highlighted. However,
in the light of this legal position, the point for consideration on
facts was, whether the 'grounds of arrest' supplied to the
Appellant's son at the time of his arrest could be said to be
meaningful and sufficient enough to give a broad idea to the
person arrested of the accusations levelled and as to why he was
being taken in custody and in the facts of the case, it was found
that at the time of arrest the 'grounds of arrest' were supplied to
the arrestee and were later served on his father and the
argument canvassed that the grounds were not sufficient
compliance of the constitutional mandate, was found to be
J-WP-59332025.odt
without merit and substance as it was held that, it was difficult to
take a view that the grounds did not make any sense or are not
meaningful or are just an eye-wash in contrast to the actual
aspect involved in Vihaan Kumar (supra), where there was
absolute failure on part of the police to prove the 'grounds of
arrest' and reliance was placed upon an entry in case diary
which merely recorded that on arrest the arrest were informed.
In these particular facts, it was held as below :-
"36. We must refer to the reasons recorded by the High Court. SCC
OnLine P&H para 7 of the judgment notes the contention regarding
failure to serve grounds of arrest. Para 9 of the impugned judgment
reads thus :
9. In the above said para, it has been explicitely mentioned that
petitioner was informed regarding his arrest and after that he was
produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who had given the seven days
police custody for conducting investigation. The allegations about non-
supply of arrest, is simply bald. The analysis of above, would clearly
point out that there is no violation of Article 22(1) of Constitution of
India because there is nothing to disbelieve that petitioner was not
informed about ground of arrest."
The Appeal filed was, therefore, dismissed as it was held
that the arrestee in the case in hand was informed as to the
grounds for which he was arrested in the subject CR though he
was granted liberty to file an application for bail.
17 In the facts before us, we have noted the specific contention
of the Petitioner that there is abject failure to follow the mandate
of law which reiterated through the decision of the Apex Court as
the Petitioner was not communicated the 'grounds of arrest' or
nor was he informed in any manner as to why he was arrested. In
the arrest form in Column No.8 there is no mention about the
'grounds of arrest' and the date on the arrest form is mentioned
J-WP-59332025.odt
as 01/07/2024 which is reflective of complete non application of
mind. With a specific contention being advanced that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated to the Petitioner in any
manner, either at the time of his arrest or after the arrest, it is
pleaded that there is non compliance of Section 50A of Cr.P.C.
apart from the fact a ground is raised that there is no written
communication regarding the 'ground of arrest' available
anywhere on record in the entire charge-sheet. Since the grounds
of arrest were not furnished to the Petitioner, either at the time of
arrest or before remanding him to custody, it is pleaded case of
the Petitioner that continuing custody of the Petitioner is grossly
illegal and invalid in the eyes of law, because it is hit by the
imperative mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
This particular plea advanced in the Petition has received
response from the Respondent and we have already reproduced
Para 6 of the Affidavit, where a stand of the Investigating Officer
is, the investigating agency arrested the Petitioner on
28/06/2024 at 6.32 hours and personally informed him the
'grounds of arrest' and this fact is mentioned in station diary
dated 28/06/2024 at 6.32 hours. The copy of the station diary
dated 28/06/2024 and case diary No.014 are annexed alongwith
the Reply Affidavit at Exh.A Colly.
We have perused the station diary entry (General Diary) of
Police Station Wadgaon Nimbalkar and in specific the station
diary entry No.014 recorded on 28/06/2024 at 06.32 hours with
respect to arrest entry. The recording of the arrest in the diary
is to the following effect :-
"API Shri Rahul Ghuge informed that, in connection with CR
J-WP-59332025.odt
No.283/2024 registered with Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station
under Section 307, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506, 352 of the Indian Penal
Code and 3/25 of the Arms Act, the accused Gaurav Shahaji Kakade,
aged 42 years, resident of Nimbut, Taluka - Baramati, District- Pune,
was searched in Mauje Nimbut and in connection with the said crime,
he is taken into custody and he is subjected to pre arrest medical
examination by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Hol, and
thereafter, by strictly following the directions issued by the Apex Court
in connection with the arrest, the information about his arrest on
28/06/2024 has been communicated to his relatives. Noted as above."
A perusal of the station diary No.1 dated 28/06/2024
which is also placed on record, refer to the case of the
prosecution resulting into the registration of the subject CR with
specific reference to the present Petitioner being arraigned as
Accused No.2. It record that he was subjected to medical
examination before arrest and on search a mobile phone
recovered from him is seized. It also record that while arresting
him, the CR Number and the 'grounds of arrest' were made
known to him in accordance with the directives of the Apex Court
and the compliance of these directives was ensured in strict
sense. It also record that in presence of the two Panchas the
Arrest Form is filled in and it is recorded that the intimation
about arrest is communicated to the father of the arrestee,
Shahaji Mugutrao Kakade and a noting to that effect is taken in
the station diary. The entry also record that the Arrestee is
given a notice under Section 41(1), 50A of Cr.P.C. orally and in
writing and in Column No.8 of the Arrest Form it is noted that the
reasons for arrest and his rights were communicated to him and
in presence of the two panchas the Arrestee signed the Arrest
Form. Upon following the procedure entry to that effect is taken
in station diary.
J-WP-59332025.odt
18 A perusal of station diary produced before us only record
that there is compliance of the directives of the Apex Court, but
the 'grounds of arrest' are not at all mentioned nor the deponent
of the Affidavit has deposed about the grounds that have been
communicated orally to the Petitioner, as admittedly they are not
communicated in writing.
In the station diary dated 28/06/2024, there is no whisper
about the 'grounds of arrest' to be communicated to the
Petitioner either orally or in writing and in fact as per the
Petitioner, in the Arrest Panchanama in Column No.8 there is
mention of date as 02/06/2024, whereas, the date of arrest of the
Petitioner is 28/06/2024 at 6.32 hours.
The station diary entry as well as the Arrest Form has no
mention about the communication of 'grounds of arrest', either
orally or in writing and, therefore, there is no question of the
same appearing in the case diary prepared by Mr. Rahul Ghuge,
the Investigating Officer, which contain a narration of the
investigation conducted for that day. When the entry do not
specify the communication of 'grounds of arrest' to the Arrestee
in the station diary, the assertion that the 'grounds of arrest'
were orally communicated, in the case diary, definitely do not
inspire confidence.
Surprisingly, the Magistrate, Baramati, before whom the
Petitioner was produced, did not inquire whether the grounds of
arrest are furnished to him prior to his production, before his
arrest or after his arrest, but before his production, either orally
or in writing, but what was only ascertained was, whether the
Arrestee was subjected to any ill-treatment.
J-WP-59332025.odt
19 Mr. Ponda has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of
the Division Bench in case of Ajit Kisan More (supra), a co-
accused in the same CR in which the Petitioner is arraigned as an
accused and in the Writ Petition, he made a grievance about his
arrest by contending that the grounds of arrest were not
communicated to him. The contention raised was opposed by
filing an Affidavit and the Division Bench recorded thus :-
"14. In the backdrop of the above submission, we have analyzed the
entire documents placed before us in this proceeding. We have perused
the Arrest/Court Surrender Form at page no.133, dated 1st July, 2024,
more specifically Clause No.8, where in the reasons of arresting a
person are always required to be mentioned alongwith the date, time
and place, with a narration of the reasons. The entire clause in the said
form is left blank in this case. Not a single word has been typed in
theArrest Form to indicate that the Petitioner was made aware of the
grounds for his arrest."
15. .........
16. .........
"17. In the backdrop of the contention put forth by the Petitioner, we
are referring to the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan
Kumar versus State of Haryana & Anr. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
concluded that the requirement of communicating the grounds of
arrest in writing is not only significant to the arrested person, but also
to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article
22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective, failing which, such
arrest may be rendered illegal."
It is further recorded thus :-
"25. The police authorities are not in a position to show us any such
document which would substantiate their stand, notwithstanding
paragraph No.13 of the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, adverted to
herein above. IT is a clear case that the reasons for arrest were not
conveyed to the Petitioner in writing."
As a result of above, the Writ Petition was allowed and the
arrest of the Petitioenr dated 01/07/2024 was declared illegal.
J-WP-59332025.odt
We are informed that this decision is subjected to challenge
in a Special Leave Petition where the Apex Court has issued
notice.
20. The learned senior counsel Mr. Mohite has plaecd reliance
upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Tirupati Vilasl
Podalwar (supra) at Nagpur Bench and also decision in case of
Rohan Mohan Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.7 at
Aurangabad Bench, which has considered the law laid down in
Vihaan Kumar that written individualised grounds are not an
inflexible requirement, but if the Arrest Memo and remand record
reflect that the Respondents were aware of the reasons for the
arrest and they were sufficiently represented, they cannot make
a grievance.
The aforesaid decisions are distinguishable as in the present
case there is no iota of evidence produced before us by the
Respondent that the 'grounds of arrest' were communicated to
the Petitioner either orally or in writing and even oral
communication was sufficient compliance of the constitutional
mandate as Clause (1) of Article 22 do not contemplate
communication of grounds in writing, but we have noted that in
the case before us there is a conspicuous absence of an assertion
in the station diary that the 'grounds of arrest' are communicated
to the Petitioner, but an attempt is made to rely upon the case
diary No.1 dated 28/06/2024 which according to us do not satisfy
the requirement of the 'reasons of arrest' being communicated to
the Petitioner, either before his arrest or after his arrest, but
J-WP-59332025.odt
before his production and this according to us has definitely
caused prejudice to the Petitioner as in the words of the Apex
Court, the right to be appraised of the 'reasons of arrest' cannot
be at all compromised as it is considered to be a fundamental
right available to the arrestee, so that he is aware of the material
with the Investigating Officer justifying his arrest and with these
reasons being offered to him he can sufficiently defend the
remand proceedings.
22 In Vihaan Kumar (supra) the contention advanced that the
investigation being complete, the charge-sheet being filed and the
custody of the Appellant was pursuant to an order taking
cognizance passed on the charge-sheet, it is held that such
argument shall amount to completely nullifying Article 21 and
22 (2) of the Constitution of India, and it is categorically held
that once it is held that the arrest is unconstitutional due to
violation of Article 22(1) that itself is vitiated and the continued
custody of such person based on orders of remand is also vitiated
and filing of charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate
an arrest which is perse unconstitutional.
The argument came to be rejected with the specific
comment from the Apex Court, " We cannot incur with the most
important safeguard provided under Articel 22."
Since we feel ourselves guided by the law laid down by the
Apex Court from time to time which has recognized the
fundamental right available to the arrestee for being made
available the 'grounds of arrest' and though not necessarily in
writing, but being communicated with the grounds of arrest, in
J-WP-59332025.odt
form of such details in the hand of Investigating Officer, which
necessitated his arrest, so as to provide him an opportunity of
defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail,
these grounds being invariable pursuant to the accused and
distinguished from reasons of arrest, which are general in nature,
according to us, failure to adhere to the mandate and resulting
into its violation, must result in release of the Petitioner.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, made absolute.
We direct that the Petitioner shall be released from custody
as we declare the arrest of the Petitioner, followed by the remand
orders to be invalid in eyes of law and we quash and set aside the
same.
Since we are informed that the charge sheet is already filed,
we direct release of the Petitioner on furnishing bail bond to the
sastisfction of the trial Court.
[SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
