Justice N Ramesh directed the Director General of Police (Law & Order) to issue instructions to every police unit in the State.

“The second respondent [DGP] shall also issue instructions to every unit of the police force in the State that the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in conformity with Mihir Rajesh Shah (cited supra) shall be treated as a dereliction of duty on the part of the arresting officer, and that the officer concerned shall be held responsible and shall be liable to departmental proceedings, in conformity with paragraph 25.1 of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (cited supra),” the court said.

The court reiterated that not supplying the grounds of arrest would vitiate the arrest and there would be no option but to release the accused, no matter how grave the offence is. The court added that in many serious cases, the accused are released not because the case is weak but because the police did not do what should be done at the time of arrest.

“The consequence is serious and it falls on the wrong people. When an arrest is vitiated, the Court has no choice but to release the accused, however grave the accusation. In very serious cases, accused persons are being released not because the case against them is weak but because the police did not do what the law requires at the moment of arrest,” the court said.

The court also called for a report from the DGP explaining if any circular or standing order has been issued on State level necessitating the written grounds of arrest after the decisions in Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, Mihir Rajesh Shah and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol. The court also enquired if its earlier direction to withdraw printed proforma with a written one had been followed. The court also sought details with respect to the training and sensitisation given, or proposed to be given to the officers empowered to arrest, on the furnishing of written grounds of arrest.

The court was hearing the bail plea of a man booked in a cheating case.

FIITJEE Limited had conducted an integrated coaching for students preparing for JEE and NEET examinations in association with Suguna PIP School in Coimbatore. The parents had paid a refundable caution deposit of Rs 1,00,000 on the assurance that it would be returned within 60 days of completion of the course. Since the parents were not refunded the caution deposit, a case was registered based on a complaint by one of the parents. The case against the petitioner was that he had signed the agreement on behalf of FIITJEE with the school, as its Regional Managing Partner.

The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR. He argued that he was only an employee of FIITJEE and not its director or shareholder, and none of the money reached him. It was argued that the parents could not be refunded as its accounts were frozen. It was also argued that no grounds of arrest were furnished to him and only a printed arrest memo, in Tamil, was supplied to him, which he could not read. The petitioner also submitted that he was an amputee with 80% permanent disability and his prosthetics had been damaged in prison.

The State resisted the bail plea and submitted that the acts of the parties had caused Rs 2.62 crore loss to the parents. It was also submitted that the petitioner had signed on behalf of the company. It was also argued that though notice was issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, he had not appeared for enquiry. It was also submitted that though the arrest memo was prepared in Tamil, its content had been explained in English, after which the petitioner had signed the same.

The court, however, noted that the only document served on the petitioner was an arrest memo on a printed Tamil form. Even in the printed form, the court noted that there was no mention of what the petitioner had been alleged to have done, to whom, when, and in what capacity. The court also noted that none of the facts regarding the agreement, the parents, the depositors or the amount had been mentioned.

The court also observed that the arrest of the petitioner was marked while he was already in prison for another crime. Thus, the court noted that the police had every opportunity to set out the grounds of arrest in a few sentences but did not do so.

The court thus concluded that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, making his arrest and remand vitiated.

The court also took exception to an argument made by the State that the petitioner was likely to abscond as he is a North Indian. The court remarked that a person's origin was not a ground to apprehend that he would flee.

“The averment that the petitioner is likely to abscond because he is "a North Indian" is not appreciated. A person's place of origin is not a ground for apprehending that he will flee. The petitioner has lived and worked in Chennai for more than two decades. Such an averment ought not to appear in an affidavit sworn by a police officer,” the court observed.

The court was thus inclined to grant bail upon certain conditions and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. Ramesh Sr. Counsel for Mr. R. Ashwin

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. M. I. Khaleel, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)