The Bombay High Court has held that the grounds of arrest communicated within 4 minutes of arrest is not unreasonable and the same cannot be stated to be violating fundamental rights of the accused person.

The Court was considering a Writ-Petition assailing the order passed by the Sessions Court whereby it set-aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class releasing the Petitioner/accused.

The single-bench of Justice Neela Gokhale observed, "....The grounds of arrest were immediately provided to the Petitioner within 4 minutes of his arrest. Thus, Mr. Venegavkar says that the police have acted strictly in consonance with the mandate of law and there is no infirmity in the Sessions Court’s order. He further informs that the Petitioner is presently absconding."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sanjaykumar Singh while the Respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor H. S. Venegavkar.

Through the impugned order, the Petitioner/ Accused was directed to surrender before the concerned police station immediately, failing which the Investigating Officer was given liberty to arrest him in accordance with law. The Sessions Court granted police custody of the Petitioner/accused for five days from the date of surrender/arrest of the accused.

An F.I.R. was registered against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 328 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code by one woman.

According to the Petitioner, on 21st November 2024, he was at his office and the Complainant/First Informant came to his office. They had tea and snacks together. She also made four phone calls to him during the course of that day. The Petitioner at the request of a police constable accompanied them where he learnt that there was an F.I.R. registered against him.

The facts reveal that the Petitioner was arrested at 22:56 hours on 21st November 2024 and was produced before the JMFC, Andheri on 22nd November 2024 at 3:20 p.m. The Magistrate, after hearing the Petitioner and the police observed that the notice-cum-intimation under Section 47(1) & (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 revealed that the police officer arresting the accused communicated to him the grounds of his arrest on 21st November 2024 at 23:00 hours. The concerned police officer then intimated regarding his arrest to his friend at 23:00 hours on 21st November 2024. The JMFC thus held that the grounds of arrest were provided to the accused 4 minutes after his actual arrest and hence the fundamental right of the Petitioner was violated. The JMFC relied upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in its decision in the matter of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Petitioner was thus directed to be released.

The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by this order assailed the same before the Sessions Court which subsequently passed the impugned order.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he was illegally picked up by the police in the afternoon of 21st November 2024 from his office even before registration of F.I.R. He submits that the Sessions Court refused his adjournment Application and hence, he was unable to remain present for the hearing before the Sessions Court. He placed reliance on the Prabir Purkayastha (supra) decision to say that the grounds of arrest must be conveyed to the accused simultaneously with his arrest. He further submitted that the Sessions Court has recorded a strange reason that rape was committed on the pretext of marriage although the prosecutrix has never mentioned this in the complaint. He thus averred that the Investigating Agency has acted in contravention of the mandate of the provisions of the BNSS and has violated his fundamental right.

Reasoning By Court

The Court was of the view that grounds of arrest being immediately provided to the accused within four minutes of his arrest cannot said to be violation of his fundamental rights.

Cause Title: Gunwant Tarachand Jain vs. The State of Maharashtra 2025:BHC-AS:6842

Click here to read/ download Order