P&H High Court Rejects Woman's Plea Claiming Arrest Was Illegal As Grounds Were In Punjabi

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging an arrest on the ground that the written grounds of arrest were in Punjabi, a language the arrestee said she could not understand.

The Court held that this plea, raised for the first time later, could not establish a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution because the contemporaneous record showed no objection about the language.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson noted that the petitioner accepted that she had received and signed the grounds of arrest. It observed,

“While her signatures alone may not establish that she understood the contents, the mere fact that the grounds were recorded in Punjabi would also not establish the contrary. The material record, therefore, assumes significance.”

Examining the material, the Court found that, "at the time of arrest, the petitioner expressed an inability to read or understand Punjabi or requested that the grounds be explained or furnished in another language. No objection or endorsement to that effect appears on the document containing the grounds of arrest. The remand proceedings also do not record such objections."

Referring to Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162, the bench said it undoubtedly requires the State to establish compliance with Article 22(1). Such compliance must, however, be tested against the contemporaneous record.

In the present case, the Court noted that the written grounds were furnished to the petitioner and acknowledged by her, while the record does not disclose any assertion stating that she was unable to understand the language in which they were communicated.

"In these circumstances, the subsequent plea that the petitioner did not understand Punjabi is not sufficient, on the material presently available, to hold that the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution read with Section 47 of the BNSS stood violated. The challenge on this count, therefore, does not merit acceptance," it added.

The petitioner, a Director of Vantara Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd., sought the Court to declare her arrest illegal. The arrest was made in an FIR registered on August 11, 2026, under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS at Police Station Division-D, Amritsar.

The case arose from a commercial transaction for the supply of 4,000 kg of almond kernels. The complainant alleged that the accused induced him to supply the goods, causing him a wrongful loss of ₹37,78,780. The prosecution relied on a cheque, allegedly signed by the petitioner, which was later dishonoured.

The petitioner said the dispute was civil in nature and concerned the quality of the goods. She pointed out that a civil suit on the same transaction had been filed in February 2026, before the FIR was registered. She also said she had taken part in the pre-FIR inquiry and appeared before the Investigating Officer in March 2026.

She was arrested at her home in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, on September 4, 2026. She was then brought to Amritsar, where the Magistrate granted police custody on September 5 and extended it on September 6.

Senior Advocate Gautam Dutt, appearing for the petitioner, made the following arguments, the petitioner had always been available to the police and was not a flight risk, so custodial arrest served no investigative purpose. The grounds of arrest were in Punjabi, which she could not read, so merely handing over the document and obtaining her signature did not satisfy Article 22(1).It was added that relative or nominated person was informed of the arrest. She was arrested outside Punjab without being produced before the nearest Magistrate for transit remand.

The State submitted that, reasons for arrest were recorded under Section 35 of the BNSS, and the local police were associated before the arrest.

The record contained no protest from the petitioner about the language, either at the time of arrest or before the Magistrate and Her father was informed of the arrest by phone, and he later signed the intimation record at the police station.

Necessity Of Arrest

The Court relied on Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to reiterate that arrest cannot follow automatically just because the power to arrest exists. It accepted that the petitioner's earlier participation in the inquiry and her known address were relevant facts. However, it held that prior participation “by itself, does not preclude the investigating agency from effecting an arrest” if the Section 35 requirements are later met.

Because the Investigating Officer had prepared the checklist and recorded reasons under Section 35(1) before the arrest, and the Magistrate had examined them, the Court found that the statutory exercise had been carried out.

Intimation To Relative

On Section 48 of the BNSS, the Court found that the record supported the State's position that the petitioner's father had been informed. It added that intimation to a relative and communication of grounds to the arrestee are separate obligations, and “compliance with one cannot substitute the other.”

Remand Orders

The Court relied on Vihaan Kumar to reiterate that a Magistrate ordering remand must check whether Article 22(1) has been complied with. It found that the September 5 order showed the Magistrate had examined the checklist, the grounds of arrest and the arrest memo, and had considered the objection on Article 22(1). The Magistrate had also granted only one day of police custody against the seven days sought.

The September 6 order recorded the specific investigative steps for which further custody was needed. On this basis, the Court rejected the plea that the Magistrates had not applied their minds.

The Court said the safeguards that attend an arrest are “substantive guarantees against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty and cannot be reduced to procedural formalities.” However, whether they were breached has to be decided on the material relating to the particular arrest. Finding no violation of Article 22(1) or Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, the Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that it had expressed no view on the merits of the FIR.

Appearance: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.