Meheraj Sk vs State of West Bengal

Tirthankar Ghosh, J

The  present  petitioner  was arrested  on  24th   of  June,  2025  in connection with Kandi P.S. Case No. 317/2025 dated 24.06.2025 under Sections 179/180 of BNS, 2023 and was thereafter produced before the Learned ACJM, Kandi, Murshidabad.

Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu appearing on behalf of the petitioner contested the present case on the issue relating to ‘grounds of arrest’ not being furnished to the present petitioner and to that effect drew the attention of the Court to the covering report as also the order passed by the Learned Magistrate when the accused was produced before the Learned Court on 24.06.2025.

It was submitted that the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Learned ACJM, Kandi, Murshidabad reflects that the FIR, forwarding report, custody memo, Inspection memo, Medical slip, seizure list, Esakshya certificate and the accused challan were submitted before the investigating officer but the order do not reflect that the ‘grounds of arrest’ were supplied to the accused at the time of his arrest or at least within a reasonable time ahead of the bail application being preferred before the Learned ACJM, Kandi.

It was argued that the ‘grounds of arrest’ not being made available to the petitioner, has violated the provisions under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, as also Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. Additionally, it was argued that as the ‘grounds of arrest’ were not furnished to the accused, the order of remand passed by the Learned ACJM is contrary to the provisions of law and the subsequent orders passed are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. In support of his contention learned senior advocate relied upon the judgment of Vihaan Kumar -versus- State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 and emphasised on paragraphs 26.2 and 26.6 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

“26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;

26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”

Learned Senior Advocate also relied upon paragraph 56 of Mihir Rajesh Shah -versus- State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025)  and  argued  that  there  is  no  scope  for  the  Court  to  detain  the petitioner any further and he is liable to be set free. Paragraph 56 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is relevant for the present case, as such is set out as follows:

“56. In conclusion, it is held that:

i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 49 of 52 offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);

ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;

iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.

iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.”

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail. A document was referred from the case diary wherefrom he submitted that the ‘grounds of arrest’ were supplied to the accused which categorically reflects that on the basis of information, 60 (Sixty) pieces counterfeit currency of Rs. 500/- (Five Hundred Rupees) denominations were seized from the petitioner and for commission of the said offence the arrest of the petitioner was warranted in connection with the instant case.

Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the forwarding report as well as enclosures which were advanced to the Learned ACJM and which also referred to the reasons for which the petitioner was arrested and the grounds for which police custody was prayed for before the Learned Magistrate. Referring to the aforesaid documents Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the issue canvassed by the petitioner do not entitle him to be released on bail as in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) it has been decided that the issue relating to ‘grounds of arrest’ being supplied or not supplied to the accused would be operative prospectively.

I have taken into account the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner  as  well  as  on  behalf  of  State  and  the  issue  which  has  been canvassed before this Court which is restricted to non-supply of ‘grounds of arrest’. Before  proceeding  further  it  would  be  relevant  to  rely  upon  the original order of admission in respect of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 22.04.2025.

“…that we are called upon for consideration in the present proceedings is: whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence under Penal Code, 1860, would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest. Another question that this Court is required to consider is: whether, even in exceptional cases, where on account of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

In Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) in paragraph 58 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as follows:

“58. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth.”

Emphasis has been made on the word ‘henceforth’. The word ‘henceforth’ in other words is synonymous with the phrase- ‘in the future’. Considering the interpretation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which was decided on 6th November, 2025 and the present case having been registered on 24.06.2025, I am of the view, that even if the contention advanced by the petitioner is accepted relating to the ‘grounds of arrest’ not being supplied, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right without canvassing on the merits of the case be automatically released.

Consequently, the bail application C.R.M. (M) 1659 of 2025 is dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.