Bombay High Court Declares Arrest Illegal, Citing Violation of Fundamental Rights.


08-August-2025 Arbitration Law >> Business & Commercial Law  

In a significant ruling of Larsen & Tourbo Limited v/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Another, the Bombay High Court has declared the arrest of an individual illegal, directing his immediate release. The court's decision was based on a finding that police authorities failed to communicate the reasons for the arrest in writing, a mandatory constitutional and statutory requirement. The judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the fundamental rights of every citizen during a police arrest.

The case centered on a writ petition filed by a man who was initially a witness in a murder investigation. The petitioner was an employee of one of the main accused. He was first interrogated and his statement was recorded as a witness. However, during the course of the investigation, he was arrested on the charge of destroying evidence by cleaning up the crime scene.

The petitioner’s primary grievance was that he was never informed in writing about the reasons for his arrest. While he was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, his legal challenge focused on the initial illegality of his detention.
 
 
 
 

During the court proceedings, the High Court scrutinized the evidence presented by both sides. The police, through an affidavit, claimed that the petitioner had been personally informed of the grounds for his arrest, and that this fact was recorded in the station diary. However, the court found major discrepancies. The official "Arrest / Court Surrender Form" had the section for reasons of arrest left completely blank. Furthermore, the police could not produce any document or acknowledgment from the petitioner to substantiate their claim that he had been served with a written copy of the reasons.

The court was particularly troubled by the conduct of the police and a “Panch” (a witness to the arrest proceedings), who had submitted contradictory and false affidavits. The court noted with strong disapproval that a false statement had been made, with the police authorities failing to substantiate their claims with any record.

In its judgment, the High Court relied on recent landmark Supreme Court rulings, including Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court reiterated the clear legal principle that the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory constitutional condition under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The purpose, the court emphasized, is to enable the arrested person and their family or friends to understand the charges and take prompt action to secure release.

Finding that the police had failed to meet their burden of proof, the High Court declared the petitioner's arrest to be illegal and directed his immediate release, provided he was not required in any other case.


Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act - 1996     

Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act - 1996  

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996