Legal Review and Analysis of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & Another 2025 INSC 1288
In-Short
Case: Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.Citation: 2025 INSC 1288Short Caption: The Supreme Court mandates that grounds of arrest must be provided in writing in a language understood by the arrestee, with a strict deadline of at least two hours before remand proceedings, declaring non-compliance renders the arrest illegal.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & Another
Citation: 2025 INSC 1288
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: November 06, 2025
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai (CJI) & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions
The judgment extensively interprets and applies the following constitutional and statutory provisions:
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India: Mandates that no arrested person shall be detained without being informed, "as soon as may be," of the grounds for such arrest.
Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Corresponds to Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It requires a police officer arresting without a warrant to forthwith communicate the full particulars of the offence and grounds of arrest.
Section 50A of CrPC, 1973: Corresponds to Section 48 of BNSS, 2023. It obligates the police to inform a friend, relative, or nominated person of the arrestee about the arrest and the place of detention.
Precedents Relied Upon:
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024)
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024)
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025)
3. Basic Details of the Case
Lead Case: Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025.
Origin: Arising from a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
Core Factual Background: The appellant, Mihir Rajesh Shah, was accused in a hit-and-run case leading to a fatality. He was arrested on 09.07.2024. The primary legal challenge was that the grounds for his arrest were not furnished to him in writing, allegedly violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
A. The Central Issue
The Supreme Court framed two primary questions of law for consideration:
Whether it is necessary to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing in every case, including those under the Indian Penal Code (now BNS, 2023)?
Whether, in exceptional circumstances where immediate written communication is not possible, the arrest is automatically vitiated due to non-compliance?
B. The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Holdings
i. The Mandatory Nature of Informing Grounds of Arrest
The Court unequivocally held that the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is absolute and applies to all arrests without exception, regardless of whether the offence is under the general law (BNS) or a special statute (like UAPA or PMLA). This is not a mere procedural formality but a fundamental right intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The objective is to equip the arrested person with the knowledge necessary to consult a legal practitioner, oppose remand effectively, and seek bail.
ii. The Mode of Communication: A Shift to Written Mandate
Harmonizing its previous judgments in Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar, the Court laid down a clear rule:
The grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee in writing, in a language he/she understands.
The Court reasoned that oral communication is susceptible to disputes, does not provide a reliable record, and fails to serve the intended purpose, especially when the arrestee is in a state of distress and unable to retain complex information.
Furnishing grounds in writing protects both the arrestee's rights and the investigating agency, as it provides clear proof of compliance.
iii. The "Reasonable Time" Framework and Exceptional Circumstances
Acknowledging practical realities, the Court created a balanced framework:
General Rule: Written grounds should be provided at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter.
Exceptional Circumstances: In cases of flagrante delicto (caught in the very act of committing a crime, especially against body or property), where providing written grounds at the moment of arrest is impractical (e.g., to prevent the accused from absconding or causing further harm), the police may orally convey the grounds at the time of arrest.
Crucial Deadline: However, in such exceptional cases, a written copy of the grounds must be supplied to the arrestee within a reasonable time, and in no case later than two hours before the arrestee is produced before a magistrate for remand proceedings.
This two-hour window is deemed essential to provide the arrestee and their counsel adequate time to scrutinize the grounds and prepare a meaningful opposition to the remand application.
iv. Consequences of Non-Compliance
The Court held that failure to supply the grounds of arrest in writing within the stipulated timeframe (i.e., before the two-hour pre-remand deadline) would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. The arrestee would be entitled to be released from custody.
5. Final Outcome and Directions
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with the following conclusive holdings:
Universal Application: The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory for all offences under all statutes.
Written Communication: The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, in a language understood by the arrestee.
Exceptional Procedure: If providing written grounds at the time of arrest is not practicable, they can be conveyed orally initially, but a written copy must be supplied at least two hours before production before the magistrate for remand.
Remedy for Violation: Non-compliance with the above will render the arrest and remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to be set free.
The Court also directed that a copy of this judgment be sent to all Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to ensure nationwide implementation.
6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
MCQ 1: According to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288), in which of the following situations is it permissible to initially convey the grounds of arrest orally rather than in writing?
a) In all cases involving economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
b) When the accused is a habitual offender.
c) In exceptional circumstances of flagrante delicto, where providing written grounds at the moment of arrest is impractical.
d) When the accused is illiterate.
MCQ 2: The Supreme Court mandated a specific time frame by which written grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in exceptional cases where it was not possible at the time of arrest. What is this deadline?
a) Within 12 hours of arrest.
b) Before the filing of the chargesheet.
c) At least two hours prior to the arrestee's production before a magistrate for remand.
d) Within 24 hours of arrest, as per the general production rule.
Blog Posts
