12 February 2025 FIR >> Criminal Law  

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the legality of an arrest, ruling that a four-minute delay in informing the accused of the grounds of his arrest did not constitute a violation of his fundamental rights. The case highlighted the crucial balance between individual liberties and the procedural requirements of criminal law, particularly in light of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).

The petitioner was arrested on charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 328, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, following an FIR filed by Smt. Seema Brijlal Meena. The timeline of events became central to the case. While the petitioner claimed he was essentially “picked up” by police before the FIR was even filed, official records indicated the arrest occurred at 22:56 hours on November 21, 2024. Crucially, the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner at 23:00 hours, just four minutes after the arrest. This short delay formed the basis of the petitioner’s argument that his fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of his arrest "simultaneously" was violated.

The case initially saw the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Andheri, Mumbai, ordering the petitioner's release, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which emphasizes the importance of informing an accused of the grounds of arrest. The JMFC reasoned that the four-minute gap constituted a violation of the petitioner’s rights.

However, the State of Maharashtra appealed this decision to the Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai. Despite the petitioner’s counsel seeking adjournments, the Sessions Court proceeded with the hearing and overturned the JMFC's order. The Sessions Court, after reviewing the arrest memo, station diary entries, and other contemporaneous documents, concluded that the four-minute delay was not unreasonable and that the arrest was legal and compliant with the BNSS.

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the Sessions Court had erred and that the grounds of arrest must be conveyed simultaneously with the arrest itself, relying again on the Prabir Purkayastha judgment. The State, on the other hand, presented evidence, including the notice of the grounds of arrest, the intimation given to the petitioner’s friend, and the General Diary details, all corroborating the timeline and the legality of the arrest. They also pointed out a typographical error in the Sessions Court order, where the arrest time was incorrectly recorded.

The High Court, after a thorough examination of the records and arguments, sided with the State. The Court emphasized the procedure laid down in Section 35(1)(c) and Section 47(1) of the BNSS, which govern arrests without warrant and the communication of grounds of arrest, respectively. Citing precedents like Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., the High Court reiterated the principle that while the grounds of arrest should be communicated "as soon as may be," a short delay, as in this case, does not necessarily invalidate the arrest, particularly when contemporaneous records support the official timeline.

The High Court concluded that the police had acted in accordance with the law and that the four-minute delay did not constitute a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The Court also dismissed the petitioner's concerns regarding the rejection of adjournment applications by the Sessions Court, noting that the petitioner was represented by counsel and given a fair hearing. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the petitioner's request for a stay on the order was also denied. The case underscores the importance of examining the specific facts and circumstances of each arrest while upholding the fundamental right of an accused to be informed of the grounds of their arrest without undue delay.

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023