Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court of India, 6 November 2025, 2 judges, 2025 INSC 1288
Grounds of arrest must be given to every arrestee, for offences under all statutes, in writing in a language the arrestee understands; where impractical at arrest, oral grounds suffice if written grounds follow at least two hours before remand production.
Facts
On 7 July 2024 a BMW car driven at high speed hit the complainant's scooter from behind in Mumbai. The complainant's wife was trapped under the car and dragged; she died of her injuries. The driver, alleged to be the appellant, fled without helping or reporting. An FIR was registered at Worli Police Station under the BNS and the Motor Vehicles Act, and the appellant was arrested on 9 July 2024. He challenged his arrest because the grounds of arrest had not been given to him in writing. The Bombay High Court acknowledged the lapse but upheld the arrest, citing his awareness of the gravity of the offence, the evidence and his evasion of arrest. The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits and issued notice only on the question of law, which it decided together with connected appeals raising the same question, with an Amicus Curiae assisting.
Questions before the Court
- Whether, in every case, including offences under the IPC (now BNS), the grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused before arrest or forthwith after arrest.
- Whether, where exigencies make it impossible to furnish the grounds of arrest before or immediately after arrest, the arrest is vitiated for non-compliance with Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS).
What the Court held
- The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) is not statute specific. It applies to all offences under all statutes, including offences under the IPC (now BNS), and is a binding safeguard rooted in Articles 21 and 22.
- The grounds must be communicated in writing, in a language the arrestee understands. Merely reading them out does not fulfil the purpose of Article 22(1), which is to let the arrestee consult a lawyer, oppose remand and seek bail.
- Where the police already hold documentary material forming the basis of the arrest, written grounds must be furnished on arrest. In exceptional cases, such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, the grounds may be conveyed orally at arrest.
- In such cases, written grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours before the arrestee is produced before the magistrate for remand. Remand papers must contain the grounds, with a note explaining any delay.
- If this schedule is not followed, the arrest and remand become illegal and the arrestee is entitled to release. The prosecution may then apply for remand or custody after supplying written grounds and explaining the delay; the magistrate should decide it expeditiously, preferably within a week.
- This procedure governs arrests from the date of the judgment. The lead appeal was disposed of on the question of law, and bail granted in the connected appeals was continued.
Why it matters
The judgment requires written grounds of arrest, earlier insisted on in PMLA and UAPA cases, for every offence, including ordinary penal offences, noting that no consistent or binding requirement of this kind existed before. It fixes a time limit for exceptional cases: oral grounds at arrest followed by written grounds at least two hours before remand production, with release as the consequence of breach. Copies were directed to the Registrars General of all High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the intended objective of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands.”
“We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest.”
“it casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22 (1) is notwithstanding any exception.”
“This period would ensure that the counsel has adequate time to scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant material to defend the arrestee proficiently and capably while opposing the remand. Any shorter interval may render such preparation illusory, thereby resulting in non-compliance of the constitutional and statutory mandate.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 (with Criminal Appeal Nos. 2189 and 2190 of 2025 and S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8704 of 2025)
- Decided
- 6 November 2025
- Bench
- B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment written by Augustine George Masih, J. and signed by B.R. Gavai, CJI.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1, Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3
P is arrested without a warrant for an offence under the BNS. The officer tells P the grounds orally at the time of arrest, but supplies them in writing only one hour before P is produced before the Magistrate for remand. Applying Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which statement is correct?
- A. The arrest is illegal, because the written grounds must in every case be handed over at the very moment of the arrest
- B. The arrest is valid, because oral communication at the time of arrest fully satisfies Article 22(1) for offences under the BNS
- C. The arrest is valid, because written grounds need only be supplied at any time before the Magistrate passes the order of remand
- D. The arrest and remand are illegal, because written grounds had to be supplied at least two hours before production for remand
Show the answer
D. The arrest and remand are illegal, because written grounds had to be supplied at least two hours before production for remand
Where written grounds cannot be given on or soon after arrest, they may be conveyed orally, but must be supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours before production for remand; non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal (para 56(iii), (iv)). Supplying them one hour before production misses that outer limit.
Question 2, Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3
In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (6 November 2025), the Supreme Court held that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing:
- A. applies to all offences, but the written grounds may be given in English whatever language the arrestee understands
- B. applies to offences under all statutes, including the BNS, and the grounds must be in a language the arrestee understands
- C. applies only to arrests under special statutes, such as the PMLA, whose own text requires grounds to be given in writing
- D. applies only to offences punishable with seven years or more, oral communication being enough for other offences
Show the answer
B. applies to offences under all statutes, including the BNS, and the grounds must be in a language the arrestee understands
The Court held that the mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest applies to all offences under all statutes, including the IPC (now BNS), and that the grounds must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands (para 56(i), (ii)). Section 47 BNSS (formerly Section 50 CrPC) carries the statutory duty.
Question 3, Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3
Under Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025), if the time schedule for supplying written grounds of arrest is not followed and the arrestee is set free, what course is open to the prosecution if custody is still required?
- A. It may seek remand or custody after supplying written grounds with reasons for the default, to be decided preferably within a week
- B. It may re-arrest the person at once without any order, since supplying the written grounds later cures the earlier defect
- C. None, because an arrest once held illegal bars any later custody of the same person in respect of the same offence for all time
- D. It must approach the High Court, because a Magistrate who found the arrest illegal cannot later entertain a remand request
Show the answer
A. It may seek remand or custody after supplying written grounds with reasons for the default, to be decided preferably within a week
Paragraph 55 (paragraph 65 in the reported text) says that on release, an application for remand or custody, if required, will be moved with reasons, after supplying the grounds in writing and explaining why they were not supplied within the schedule, and the Magistrate shall decide it expeditiously, preferably within a week, following natural justice. Re-arrest therefore needs a judicial order; Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (21 September 2026) followed this course and added that the application must carry the endorsement of the officer's immediate superior.