The court underscores the mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest, emphasizing the constitutional rights of arrestees.
In a significant ruling, the Meghalaya High Court upheld the bail granted to Smti. Sonam Raguvanshi, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards during arrests as mandated by the Constitution and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Presided over by Justice W. Diengdoh, the court found that the State of Meghalaya failed to provide the respondent with written grounds of arrest, a procedural lapse that led to the upholding of the trial court's decision to grant bail.
The case stemmed from an order dated April 27, 2026, by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), which enlarged Raguvanshi on bail. The State of Meghalaya challenged this decision, arguing that procedural requirements were met, and the grounds of arrest were known to the respondent. However, the High Court pointed out that the documentation provided did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.
Justice Diengdoh highlighted that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and in a language known to the arrestee at the time of arrest or at least two hours before remand. Failure to do so violates the constitutional and statutory rights of the arrestee, as reiterated in previous Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark Mihir Rajesh Shah case.
The court criticized the use of a generic checklist format for communicating arrest grounds, noting that it failed to provide specific allegations or charges against the respondent. This lack of specificity and clarity was deemed insufficient to meet legal standards, reflecting non-application of judicious mind by the arresting agency.
The judgment also addressed the argument regarding the prospective application of the Mihir Rajesh Shah ruling. The court clarified that the constitutional requirement for written communication of arrest grounds predates the Shah judgment, as affirmed in earlier cases like Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha.
The decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to uphold constitutional rights and procedural fairness, setting a precedent for future cases involving arrest protocols.
Bottom Line:
Compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding furnishing of grounds of arrest to an arrestee in writing, at the time of arrest, is mandatory. Non-compliance with these requirements can vitiate the arrest and entitle the accused to bail.
Statutory provision(s): Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
