On Thursday, the Supreme Court examined whether police can delay informing an accused of the reasons for arrest in situations involving urgent or fast-moving criminal acts like hit-and-run incidents.
The case arose from a 2024 Mumbai hit-and-run case where the accused allegedly drove under the influence and rammed into a scooter, resulting in the death of the pillion rider, who was reportedly dragged for some distance before the driver fled the scene. The arrest was later challenged on the grounds that the police had failed to inform the accused of the reasons for arrest before taking him into custody, allegedly violating constitutional safeguards.
Counsel for the accused argued that Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates prior written communication of arrest grounds, and any deviation amounts to an infringement of a fundamental right against arbitrary detention. The State contended that immediate disclosure was not feasible in fast-evolving or emergency situations, and that strict procedural compliance should not obstruct effective investigation and public safety.
The Bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, reaffirmed that every arrested individual has a fundamental right to know the grounds of arrest, and non-communication could render the arrest unlawful. However, Justice Masih observed that constitutional safeguards, valuable as they are, cannot be interpreted in a manner that turns them into procedural obstacles hampering law enforcement. The Court noted that situations may arise where informing the accused at the moment of arrest is impractical, for instance, when an offence occurs in the officer’s presence or there is a clear risk of the suspect absconding or committing further offences.
Balancing constitutional protections with practical policing needs, the Court held that where police already possess documentary material justifying an arrest, written grounds must ordinarily be furnished at the time of arrest. Yet, in exceptional cases such as offences committed in flagrante delicto or posing imminent danger, oral communication of reasons at the time of arrest is permissible, provided the written grounds are supplied at least two hours before the accused’s production before a magistrate. The Court further directed that magistrates must verify compliance with this safeguard upon the accused’s presentation.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
