Failure To Furnish Written Grounds Of Arrest To Be Treated As Dereliction Of Duty By Arresting Officer: Madras High Court
The Court held that oral explanation of an arrest memo containing no grounds is not communication in writing; granted bail to FIITJEE Regional Managing Partner and impleaded DGP suo motu.
Justice N. Ramesh, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, to instruct every police unit that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest, in conformity with the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288, shall be treated as a dereliction of duty by the arresting officer, who will be liable to departmental proceedings. The Court clarified that this is not a finding on the personal culpability of the investigating officer in the case, who is entitled to be heard in any later proceeding.
The Court held that an oral explanation of an arrest memo that contains no grounds is not communication of grounds in writing in a language the arrested person understands. It found the arrest and remand vitiated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS. It granted bail to the Regional Managing Partner of FIITJEE Limited for Tamil Nadu and impleaded the DGP suo motu.
A Bench of Justice N. Ramesh observed, “The second respondent shall also issue instructions to every unit of the police force in the State that the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in conformity with Mihir Rajesh Shah (cited supra) shall be treated as a dereliction of duty on the part of the arresting officer, and that the officer concerned shall be held responsible and shall be liable to departmental proceedings, in conformity with paragraph 25.1 of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (cited supra). Nothing in this order is a finding on the personal culpability of the investigating officer in this case, who is entitled to be heard in any proceeding that may follow”.
Senior Advocate A. Ramesh appeared for the petitioner and M.M.I. Khaleel, Government Advocate appeared for the respondent.
“The consequence is serious and it falls on the wrong people. When an arrest is vitiated, the Court has no choice but to release the accused, however grave the accusation. In very serious cases, accused persons are being released not because the case against them is weak but because the police did not do what the law requires at the moment of arrest. The persons who suffer are the victims, here 262 parents, and the cause of a fair investigation. It is not clear whether this is the result of ignorance or of indifference. Either way, the police need to be sensitised, trained and educated on this point, and the officer who commits the lapse must answer for it. In Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (cited supra), the Supreme Court directed that where an accused is released for violation of Article 22(1), the superior authority shall hand over the investigation to another officer”, the Bench further observed.
The petitioner is the third accused in a Coimbatore case under Section 420 of the IPC. FIITJEE, in arrangement with a school, collected a refundable deposit of Rs.1,00,000 from each parent for JEE and NEET coaching. The deposits were not returned, and 262 parents are said to have lost Rs.2.62 crore. He is not named in the complaint or the FIR, and was arrayed on the basis of an agreement he is said to have signed for the company.
He was arrested on July 15, 2026 in an Economic Offences Wing case, and formally arrested in this crime inside Puzhal prison on August 11. His anticipatory bail plea was withdrawn, and the Magistrate dismissed his bail plea on August 25. The Court declined a direct petition with liberty to approach the Sessions Court, which dismissed his plea.
The Court held that the objection of no change in circumstances did not arise, as the earlier petition was not decided on merits.
Observing that accused persons are released because police did not do what the law requires at the time of arrest, the Court called for a DGP report by the next hearing on circulars issued, withdrawal of the printed arrest memo, whether any circular reached the E2 Peelamedu station before August 11, and officer training. The petitioner was released on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, on conditions. The matter is listed for compliance on November 10 2026.
Cause Title: Ankur Kumar Jain v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr., Crl.O.P. No. 27525 of 2026.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate A. Ramesh with R. Ashwin, Advocate.
Respondent: M.M.I. Khaleel, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).