The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police to review existing arrest instructions and forms and issue corrective instructions to ensure that the binding directions of the Supreme Court are complied with. The Court observed that merely mentioning the crime number and penal provisions, or recording that the accused was informed of the grounds, does not establish compliance when the documents contain no factual basis connecting the accused with the offence.

Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar was hearing an application filed challenging the legality of the applicant's arrest and subsequent custody in a murder case, on the ground that the factual grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him in writing under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The applicant contended that the arrest notice merely mentioned the crime number, penal provisions and the fact that he was being arrested for investigation of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. It did not describe the incident, the role attributed to him or the factual basis connecting him with the offence.

The State submitted that the applicant signed the Section 47 notice, that his brother was informed of the arrest and that the arrest papers and station diary establish compliance.

The Court noted that Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS require the arrested person to be informed of the factual grounds for arrest. Referring to various precedents, the Court highlighted that the communication must convey the basic facts on which the arrest rests. It need not disclose the entire case diary, every witness statement or evidence yet to be collected.

“An arrest memorandum, a combined notice or another document may suffice if it contains the requisite facts and is actually furnished in the manner and within the time required by law. The inquiry concerns what was conveyed and to whom and when; the heading or nomenclature of the document cannot decide the same,” the Court remarked.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026), the Court reiterated that written grounds must be furnished in a language understood by the arrested person. Where an exceptional situation makes immediate written communication impracticable, an oral explanation at arrest must be followed by written grounds within a reasonable time and, in every event, at least two hours before production for remand.

The Court found that the arrest notice identified the police station, crime number and penal provisions but contained no account of the shooting, no identification of the deceased, no allegation of the applicant's role and no factual basis connecting him with the offence. Emphasizing the importance of this, the Court observed:

“These are not prescribed entries which must appear identically in every case. Their collective absence matters here because the document conveys no intelligible factual accusation against this applicant at all. It identifies the proceeding in which arrest is made, but does not explain the grounds for arresting him in that proceeding.”

The Court further noted that the directions issued by the Apex Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026) require written grounds to be furnished after release and, if custody is still sought, an application explaining the earlier failure and the present necessity, endorsed by the immediate superior authority.

The Court held that the arrest and consequential custody were vitiated and directed the applicant's release.

The Court further directed Magistrates and courts dealing with remand applications to verify substantive compliance by examining the communication furnished, its language, date and time of delivery, and the material establishing delivery.

“… all the courts dealing with Remand applications shall be duty bound to physically verify the statutory compliance… The Magistrate must ascertain whether the communication conveys grounds personal to the arrestee and permits an intelligible response to the request for custody… A signature or printed assurance is relevant, but cannot automatically replace examination of the contents,” the Court remarked.

The Court accordingly directed the Registrar (Judicial) to forward the judgment to the Maharashtra DGP and Principal District and Sessions Judges for circulation and compliance with the Supreme Court directions noted by the Court.

Case Title: Krushna Arun Shingare v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 1813 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order