Court rules non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest in a language understood by accused vitiates arrest; directs police reforms and departmental action
In a significant judgment delivered on October 7, 2026, the Madras High Court granted bail to Ankur Kumar Jain, an employee of FIITJEE Limited, arrested in a cheating case involving refundable caution deposits collected from parents for coaching courses. The case, registered as Crime No. 215 of 2026 at the Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore, involves allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner, Ankur Kumar Jain, was arrested while already in judicial custody in another case. Crucially, the court found that the arrest memo served on him was only in Tamil, a language he could not understand, and failed to provide any written grounds of arrest explaining the specific acts alleged against him. The memo merely referred to the crime number and the penal provision. The police's oral explanation in English was held insufficient to meet the constitutional and statutory mandate under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which require grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing and in a language understood by the accused.
The High Court emphasized that the failure to furnish such written grounds vitiates both the arrest and the subsequent remand, thereby entitling the accused to bail. The court also noted that the petitioner was not named in the initial complaint or FIR, and the police case rested on documents like agreements and bank records already in possession of the police. The court rejected the police contention that the petitioner was likely to abscond due to being "a North Indian," stating that place of origin is not a valid ground for such apprehension.
Besides granting bail on conditions, the court suo motu impleaded the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, directing a report on compliance with the Supreme Court's repeated instructions on furnishing written grounds of arrest. The court ordered withdrawal of defective printed arrest memo proformas, training and sensitization of police officers, and departmental proceedings against officers who fail to comply with these mandates, aligning with the Supreme Court's rulings in recent cases such as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's firm stance on protecting constitutional rights during arrest and calls for systemic reforms in police procedures to uphold the rule of law. The petitioner was released on furnishing bail bonds and subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses and not leaving India without permission.
Bottom Line:
Bail - Non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest in language understood by accused vitiates arrest and remand - Accused entitled to bail - High Court also issued directions to Director General of Police regarding withdrawal of defective arrest memo proforma, training of police officers and departmental action for such lapses.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 47, 483; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 22(1)
Ankur Kumar Jain v. State, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995535
