Should Grounds Of Arrest Be Mandatorily Supplied 'Prior' To Arrest In Every Case? Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Worli Hit & Run Case

The Supreme Court today reserved orders on a plea filed by the prime accused in Worli Hit-and-Run case seeking his release. The plea raised inter-alia the issue as to whether furnishing grounds of arrest to the accused, in writing, is mandatory in all cases, including those arising out of the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih came upon the issue pursuant to a challenge brought by Mihir Shah (the prime accused) to a Bombay High Court order, which denied his release on the ground of illegal arrest.After hearing Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi (for Mihir Shah), the counsel appearing for State of Maharashtra, and Advocate Shri Singh (Amicus Curiae), the Supreme Court today reserved verdict.Notably, Justice Gavai expressed that the bench was inclined to issue notice in the case only to settle the legal position."The question that we are called upon to answer is as to whether in each and every case, even arising out of IPC, would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest? Another question we are required to consider is, in exceptional cases, on account of exigencies, if it is not possible to furnish grounds of arrest either before or immediately after arrest, whether even in such cases the arrest is vitiated on account of non-compliance with Section 50 CrPC?" the Court observed in its order.Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri (alongwith Advocate Dhvani Shah) and Advocate Karl P Rustomkhan (alongwith Advocate Vaibhav Jagtap) represented petitioners in two other cases listed before the Court, wherein similar issue was involved and a reference made by the High Court in view of conflicting decisions. As the issue was similar to Mihir Shah's case, the Court said that its decision would cover the two cases as well. However, considering their peculiar facts, the fact that chargesheet had been filed in both the cases and that the accused had spent about 10 months in custody, bail was granted, subject to terms and conditions.During the hearing, Singhvi, on behalf of Mihir Shah, submitted that hard cases should not lead to "bad law". He contended that even till date, when the petitioner has undergone about 10 months in custody, no grounds of arrest have been furnished. Citing judicial precedents on the law point, the senior counsel further urged that in cases of hot pursuit, it would be understandable if grounds are supplied to the accused a few hours after he is apprehended; however, it cannot be the case that in heinous offenses (like murder), grounds are not supplied at all.Per contra, counsel appearing for Maharashtra submitted that the grounds of arrest and legal rights were (orally) explained to the petitioner, in presence of panchas. Whether they were required to be furnished in writing, the Court would lay down, she said. The counsel also took the Court through the panch witness' statement.Hearing her, Justice Gavai posed, "Ordinarily, even after arrest, why should the grounds not be communicated in 24 hrs? In exceptional circumstances, nobody is disputing there can be an exception...". To this, the counsel replied by saying that all that could have been done in the case was done. She highlighted the exigencies of the case by informing that the accused was absconding after the incident and came to be apprehended by police officials of a station other than the Worli police station. "Arrest memo mentions the father's name and that information had been communicated to him over phone. Reasons and grounds were both communicated", she asserted.The Amicus, on the other hand, took the Court through a note filed by him tracing the legal provisions and judicial precedents on the issue (including Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana). He submitted that an accused's right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22 of the Constitution, which provides that the grounds must be informed as soon as may be. Likewise, he said, Section 50 CrPC also requires that the grounds must be supplied to the accused. However, there is no statutory or Constitutional mandate that the grounds have to be supplied in writing.The Amicus urged that there has been consistent judicial interpretation of accused's rights in the above regard, with only one caveat that if the accused claims he was not communicated the grounds, burden shall be on the police officers to prove otherwise.Drawing a distinction between general offenses vis-a-vis offenses under special laws (like the PMLA, UAPA and NDPS), he further underlined that when seeking bail under special laws, there is added burden on the accused to prima facie convince the bail Court that he did not commit the offense. Therefore, supply of grounds of arrest (and reasons to believe) is imperative in special laws, which structure cannot be adopted as it is when dealing with general offenses.It was also argued that non-supply of grounds of arrest should not be fatal. The Amicus remarked...

Should Grounds Of Arrest Be Mandatorily Supplied 'Prior' To Arrest In Every Case? Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Worli Hit & Run Case

Debby Jain

'Most inhuman conduct. You did not have the courtesy to send the lady (victim) to hospital', said J Gavai to the accused's counsel.

Tags