Bombay High Court Refers Interpretation of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. to Larger Bench: “Lack of Clarity in Arrest Procedures and Non-Compliance with Mandatory Written Grounds of Arrest Violates Fundamental Rights Under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court has referred the interpretation of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to a Larger Bench, stating that there is serious confusion and lack of clarity regarding the necessity of providing written grounds of arrest. The court observed that investigating agencies follow inconsistent procedures, and different courts have issued conflicting rulings, leading to legal uncertainty. The decision has major implications for multiple pending cases where the accused are challenging their detention based on non-compliance with Section 50 of Cr.P.C..

Facts

1. Multiple writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court, challenging the legality of detention on the ground that the accused were not provided with written grounds of arrest, violating Section 50 of Cr.P.C..
2. Some petitions also raised issues under Sections 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C., which deal with the circumstances under which an arrest can be made and the necessity of issuing a notice before arrest.
3. The petitioners contended that since the police did not inform them in writing about the grounds of their arrest, their detention was illegal, and they must be released.
4. The State of Maharashtra, represented by the Advocate General, argued that in some cases, written grounds were not necessary as the accused were already aware of the reasons for their arrest, especially if they had earlier applied for anticipatory bail.

Issues Before the Court

The main legal issues the court had to consider were:

1. Is it mandatory under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. to provide written grounds of arrest, even when the accused is already aware of the reasons for their arrest?
2. If written grounds are not provided at the time of arrest, does that automatically make the detention illegal, entitling the accused to immediate release?
3. Can an accused be re-arrested if initially released due to procedural lapses in compliance with Section 50 of Cr.P.C.?
4. Does Section 41A of Cr.P.C. require a mandatory notice of appearance before arrest for offenses punishable with up to seven years imprisonment?
5. Does providing a remand report in court satisfy the requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest under Section 50 of Cr.P.C.?
6. Is there inconsistency in how different investigating agencies follow arrest procedures, leading to forum shopping by accused persons?

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, represented by several senior advocates, made the following arguments:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights

• The petitioners argued that non-compliance with Section 50 of Cr.P.C. violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
• Article 22 states that an arrested person must be informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds of arrest.
• The Supreme Court, in cases like Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), ruled that written communication of arrest reasons is a constitutional safeguard, not a procedural formality.

2. Precedents Supporting Immediate Release

• Petitioners relied on past Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments, where courts ordered the release of accused persons due to procedural lapses in providing written grounds of arrest.
• Cases cited include:
  • Mahesh Pandurang Naik v. State of Maharashtra (2024)
  • Nisha Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2024)
  • Sachin Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra (2024)
  • Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

3. Even Serious Offenses Require Compliance

• The petitioners argued that even in serious offenses (e.g., murder, rape, NDPS Act cases), failure to provide written grounds of arrest renders detention illegal.
• They emphasized that constitutional rights do not depend on the severity of the crime.

4. Section 41A of Cr.P.C. Must Be Followed

• Section 41A mandates issuing a notice before arrest in cases where the punishment is up to seven years.
• Petitioners argued that police often skip this mandatory step, making arrests unlawful.

5. Re-Arrest Not Permissible

• The petitioners contended that once an accused is released due to procedural lapses, the police cannot re-arrest them without new evidence.
• Re-arrest would violate Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and set a dangerous precedent allowing police to bypass procedural safeguards.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Maharashtra)

The Advocate General of Maharashtra made the following key arguments on behalf of the State:

1. Written Grounds Not Always Necessary

• The State argued that written grounds of arrest are not always necessary, especially in cases where the accused:
  • Already knew why they were being arrested (e.g., they had applied for anticipatory bail earlier).
  • Was caught red-handed or arrested immediately after committing an offense.

2. Serious Offenses Should Not Lead to Automatic Release

• The State argued that if courts allow automatic release due to procedural lapses, even accused persons involved in serious crimes (e.g., NDPS Act violations, financial fraud, organized crime) could be set free on technical grounds.

3. Re-Arrest is Legally Permissible

• The State argued that an accused can be re-arrested after correcting procedural mistakes.
• The failure to provide written reasons initially does not create a permanent immunity from prosecution.

4. Providing the Remand Report is Sufficient Compliance

• The State contended that giving a remand report (which contains details of the case) to the accused at the first remand hearing is sufficient compliance with Section 50 of Cr.P.C.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 50 of Cr.P.C.

• Requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of their arrest in writing.
• This provision ensures transparency and prevents arbitrary detentions.

2. Section 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C.

• Restricts arbitrary arrests by requiring issuance of a notice before arrest in cases punishable up to seven years.
• The Bombay High Court had previously issued guidelines for police compliance, but the petitioners argued these were not being followed consistently.

3. Precedents Considered

• The court reviewed Supreme Court cases that mandated strict compliance with procedural safeguards, particularly:
  • Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023)
  • Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024)

Precedent Analysis

• The Bombay High Court noted that some High Court benches granted bail due to non-compliance, while others denied relief, leading to inconsistent rulings.
• To resolve this contradiction, the court referred the issue to a Larger Bench.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Lack of Clarity in Arrest Procedures
   • Investigating agencies do not follow a uniform procedure.
   • Courts have issued conflicting rulings, leading to forum shopping by accused persons.
2. Legal Implications on Numerous Cases
   • The decision will impact hundreds of pending cases where accused persons have challenged their arrests.
3. Need for an Authoritative Ruling
   • A Larger Bench must decide whether non-compliance with Section 50 automatically invalidates an arrest.

Conclusion

• The matter is referred to a Larger Bench to settle the interpretation of Section 50 of Cr.P.C..
• Until the Larger Bench decides, courts will continue to interpret the law differently, causing legal uncertainty.

Implications

• Immediate effect on ongoing criminal cases, especially those where detentions are challenged on procedural grounds.
• Possible changes in police procedures, ensuring strict compliance with Section 50 of Cr.P.C..
• If the Larger Bench upholds strict compliance, many detainees may be released.

Also Read – Delhi High Court: Non-Communication of Rejection Invalidates Withholding of Voluntary Retirement—”Right Accrues Upon Expiry of Notice Period”