Court Finds Arrest Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Valid Despite Language Objection; Grounds of Arrest Communicated and Intimation to Relative Confirmed
In a significant judgment dated September 24, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Neerja K. Kalson, dismissed the petition challenging the arrest of Vandana Dhiman under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in a commercial dispute case. The petitioner had contended that her arrest was illegal, arbitrary, and void on grounds including non-communication of arrest grounds in a language understood by her and failure to inform any relative about her arrest as mandated by law.
The case arose from an FIR registered on August 11, 2026, concerning allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to the supply of almond kernels valued at approximately ₹37.78 lakhs. Vandana Dhiman, a Director of Vantara Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd., was arrested on September 4, 2026, at her residence in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. She challenged the legality of her arrest and the subsequent remand orders before the High Court.
The petitioner's main grievance was that the written grounds of arrest were furnished in Punjabi, a language she allegedly did not understand, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, which require that grounds of arrest be communicated effectively and in a language understood by the arrestee. She also claimed that no intimation of her arrest was given to any relative, as required by law.
The State, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Nitesh Sharma and others, refuted these allegations, producing contemporaneous records showing that the Investigating Officer had prepared a checklist recording the necessity of arrest under Section 35 BNSS before effecting the arrest. The written grounds of arrest, though in Punjabi, were furnished to the petitioner and bore her signatures. Crucially, there was no contemporaneous objection or request from the petitioner regarding the language at the time of arrest or during remand proceedings. Furthermore, the State established that the petitioner's father was immediately informed of her arrest via phone call and signed the intimation record upon arrival at the police station.
The Court underscored the constitutional philosophy distinguishing the power to arrest from the justification for arrest, emphasizing that personal liberty is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and procedural safeguards under Article 22(1) are substantive guarantees against arbitrary detention. Citing landmark Supreme Court precedents including Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing and in a language understood by the accused to enable effective exercise of legal rights.
Upon detailed analysis, the Court found that the Investigating Officer had complied with the statutory requirement to record reasons for arrest under Section 35 BNSS and had furnished written grounds, duly signed by the petitioner. The absence of any contemporaneous objection to the language of communication, coupled with the petitioner's signatures, led the Court to hold that the constitutional mandate was satisfied. The Court further noted that intimation of arrest to a relative is a distinct obligation which, in this case, was fulfilled by informing the petitioner's father.
Regarding the remand orders authorizing police custody, the Court observed that the Magistrate had carefully examined the arrest records, grounds of arrest, and objections, and granted limited police custody after considering investigative needs. The remand was therefore not mechanical but reflective of judicial application of mind.
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no violation of Article 22(1) or Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS was made out. It clarified that the observations were confined to the legality of arrest and remand and did not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying allegations.
This judgment reinforces the constitutional safeguards surrounding arrest procedures in India under the new BNSS framework, emphasizing procedural rigor and the importance of contemporaneous records in validating compliance. It also illustrates the judiciary's balanced approach in scrutinizing arrests for legality without undermining legitimate investigative processes.
Bottom Line:
Arrest under BNSS - Mere power to arrest is distinct from justification for arrest - Written grounds of arrest must be effectively communicated in a language understood by the accused, but where contemporaneous record shows furnishing of written grounds, acknowledgment by accused and no contemporaneous objection regarding language, violation of Article 22(1) is not established - Intimation of arrest to father held proved - Remand orders upheld as reflecting application of mind.
Statutory provision(s): Article 22(1) Constitution of India, Sections 35, 47, 48 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Vandana Dhiman v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997225
