Failure To Furnish Grounds Of Arrest Before Magistrate Renders Arrest Illegal: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking bail in a Sessions case arising out of offences punishable under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, allowing the petition in part, observed that “the investigating officer who has arrested the petitioner… has not furnished the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Therefore, the arrest will be rendered illegal, entitling the release of the arrestee.”

Background

The prosecution's case was that a quarrel arose between the accused persons and the deceased, arising out of prior hostility. During the incident, the petitioner and another accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with a knife, resulting in fatal injuries.

The charge sheet indicated that multiple eyewitnesses had seen the assault, including injured witnesses who sustained simple injuries while intervening. Medical evidence showed that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to penetrating injuries to the chest and lung.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After filing the charge sheet, he sought bail, contending that his arrest and remand were illegal as the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the trial court records and found that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to the petitioner before his production before the Magistrate.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Court reiterated the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest,” observing that reasons are general in nature, whereas grounds must contain specific facts personal to the accused and necessary for him to effectively challenge remand and seek bail.

In Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Apex Court had ruled that “The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands”.

The Court also relied on constitutional jurisprudence interpreting Article 22(1), holding that communication of grounds of arrest is a fundamental safeguard designed to enable an arrested person to defend himself, consult counsel, and oppose custodial remand.

It noted that the law requires that written grounds of arrest be supplied within a reasonable time and in any event before production before the Magistrate for remand. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the arrest illegal and entitles the arrestee to release.

Applying these principles, the Court held that since the investigating officer failed to furnish the grounds of arrest before producing the petitioner before the Magistrate, the arrest and remand stood vitiated.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be released on account of the illegality in the arrest procedure. It therefore ordered his release while granting liberty to the prosecution to move a fresh application for remand after supplying written grounds of arrest to the accused.

The Court also recorded a lapse on the part of the investigating officer for non-compliance with statutory requirements and directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police for appropriate action.

Cause Title: Nanjunda v. State of Karnataka

Appearances

Petitioner: Pratheep K.C., Advocate

Respondent: M.R. Patil, HCGP

Click here to read/download Judgment