Police Cannot Justify Arrest by Giving Generic Reasons Without Informing the Accused of the Actual Allegations, Bombay High Court Orders Immediate Release
Facts
The petitioner, Shankesh Prithviraj Sanghvi, was arrested on 21 May 2026 in connection with FIR No. 226 of 2026 registered at Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 64, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 308, 351(2), 352 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The FIR was lodged by a woman related to the petitioner through family connections. She alleged that during a family trip to London in August 2024, the petitioner secretly took her obscene photographs while she was under the influence of alcohol. She further alleged that he subsequently threatened to circulate the photographs, compelled her to share objectionable videos, sexually exploited and repeatedly raped her, created morphed obscene images, contacted her through an unidentified Instagram account, made obscene video calls and demanded ₹50 lakh for deleting the material.
The petitioner was arrested at approximately 10:29 p.m. on the same day. He was produced before the Magistrate on 22 May 2026 and remanded to police custody. His objection that the grounds of arrest had not been properly communicated under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was rejected.
Further police custody was granted on 25 May 2026. On 28 May 2026, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. He thereafter approached the Bombay High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging his arrest and the remand orders as being contrary to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner was effectively informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter.
- Whether the petitioner’s arrest and the subsequent orders remanding him to police and judicial custody were illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.
- Whether the petition seeking a declaration that the arrest was illegal was required to be heard by a Division Bench or could be decided by a Single Judge.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that until he was produced before the Magistrate for the first remand, he had not been informed of the factual allegations forming the basis of his arrest.
It was submitted that the documents supplied to him merely mentioned the penal provisions invoked and contained generic reasons such as preventing further offences, protecting evidence, preventing absconding and facilitating investigation. They did not disclose the basic facts, accusations or specific material necessitating his arrest.
The petitioner contended that there is a fundamental distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest.” Generic reasons applicable to every accused cannot substitute personalised grounds containing the essential facts and material relied upon by the investigating agency.
It was further argued that the Magistrate failed to independently examine whether the constitutional and statutory requirements relating to communication of grounds of arrest had been satisfied. The fact that an advocate appeared and argued at the remand stage could not cure the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest.
Since the initial arrest was unconstitutional, all subsequent remand orders founded upon that arrest were also liable to be set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the intervenor-victim opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner had been called to the police station immediately after the victim’s statement was recorded and was made aware of the allegations against him.
It was argued that the communication issued under Section 47 of the BNSS stated that the victim had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and that the investigation revealed his direct involvement. This, according to the respondents, amounted to sufficient compliance with the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest.
The respondents further submitted that the petitioner had not specifically raised the plea of non-communication of grounds at the initial stage in the manner subsequently asserted. Such an objection could not be repeatedly raised at every remand hearing.
They also relied upon the principle that a procedural irregularity should not invalidate an arrest unless the accused establishes actual or demonstrable prejudice. Since the petitioner was represented by counsel and had an opportunity to oppose the remand, no prejudice was caused to him.
A preliminary objection was also raised that the petition ought to have been heard by a Division Bench because it sought a declaration that the arrest was illegal.
Analysis of the Law
Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that an arrested person must be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest. Section 47 of the BNSS gives statutory effect to this constitutional protection.
The Court emphasised the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest.” Reasons for arrest are general considerations, such as the possibility of absconding, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses or obstructing investigation. Such reasons may apply to several accused persons.
Grounds of arrest, however, must be specific and personal to the arrested individual. They must disclose the basic facts, accusations and material that caused the investigating officer to consider the arrest necessary. The information must be sufficient to enable the accused to oppose custodial remand and seek bail effectively.
The communication supplied to the petitioner merely stated that:
- the victim had lodged a lawful complaint against him; and
- the investigation conducted so far indicated his direct involvement.
The Court held that these statements did not contain the necessary factual details or basic allegations forming the foundation of the arrest. Merely mentioning the offences registered or stating that the accused was involved did not constitute substantive compliance with Article 22(1).
The Court also found that the arrest form contained no information regarding the grounds or reasons for arrest. The General Diary entry and the notice under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS only recorded generic reasons for effecting an arrest.
The prosecution’s assertion that the allegations had been orally explained was unsupported by the record. There was no material showing precisely what had been communicated to the petitioner before or immediately after the arrest.
The Court further held that representation by an advocate at the remand stage cannot replace the constitutional obligation to communicate the grounds of arrest. Legal representation and communication of grounds of arrest are distinct safeguards.
Precedent Analysis
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Supreme Court distinguished between generic reasons for arrest and personalised grounds of arrest. Grounds of arrest must contain the basic facts relied upon by the investigating agency so that the accused can meaningfully oppose remand and seek bail.
The Bombay High Court applied this distinction and found that the communication made to the petitioner contained only general assertions and not the factual grounds necessitating his arrest.
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court held that compliance with Article 22(1) is mandatory and that the burden of proving compliance lies upon the investigating agency. Non-compliance vitiates the arrest as well as subsequent remand orders, although it does not invalidate the investigation, charge-sheet or trial.
The judgment also imposes a duty upon the Magistrate to independently ascertain compliance with constitutional safeguards before authorising detention.
The High Court found that the Magistrate had failed to discharge this obligation.
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
This decision required written grounds of arrest to be communicated within a reasonable period and, in any event, at least two hours before the accused is produced before the Magistrate for remand.
In the present case, the State failed to establish when the police custody remand application was supplied to the petitioner or whether it was provided at least two hours before his production.
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to an arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The requirement is intended to ensure that the accused can effectively exercise the right to challenge the arrest and seek bail.
Ahmed Mansoor v. State
The Supreme Court held that an explanation of the grounds by the remand court cannot constitute adequate compliance with the obligation to furnish grounds at the time the person is arrested.
The Bombay High Court relied on this decision to reject the argument that any deficiency was cured during the remand proceedings.
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan
The respondents relied upon this decision to argue that the legality of an arrest should be tested on the basis of demonstrable prejudice.
The High Court distinguished the case, observing that it concerned cancellation of bail after filing of the charge-sheet and involved materially different facts. The Court held that violation of Article 22(1) could not be excused merely because the accused had not separately proved prejudice.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
The Constitution Bench recognised that procedural law confers valuable rights and that courts must protect procedural safeguards with the same seriousness as substantive rights. The High Court held that this principle had been overlooked by both the investigating agency and the Magistrate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the materials relied upon by the State did not establish that the petitioner had been supplied with the factual and personalised grounds of arrest.
The communication under Section 47 merely stated that a complaint had been filed and that the petitioner’s involvement had been found during investigation. It did not disclose the alleged acts, the nature of the accusations or the material requiring his arrest.
The first remand order was also found deficient. The Magistrate reasoned that since the petitioner was represented by an advocate who argued at length, the object of Section 47 had been fulfilled. The High Court rejected this reasoning and held that the object of communicating grounds of arrest is not merely to provide legal assistance, but to furnish the accused with sufficient factual knowledge to defend himself against detention.
The Magistrate neither recorded satisfaction that the grounds had been properly communicated nor meaningfully considered the petitioner’s objection. Subsequent remand orders could not validate an arrest that was unconstitutional at its inception.
The Court clarified that it had not examined the truth or merits of the allegations in the FIR. Its decision was confined exclusively to the failure to comply with the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest.
The preliminary objection regarding the Single Judge’s jurisdiction was also rejected. The Court held that under Rule 18(4) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, a Single Judge could decide a petition under Articles 226 or 227 arising from orders passed by criminal courts.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner had not been furnished with sufficient and substantive grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the Court:
- declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal as being in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution;
- set aside the arrest and the remand orders dated 22 May, 25 May and 28 May 2026;
- directed the petitioner’s immediate release from judicial custody; and
- granted liberty to the State to arrest the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if a case for arrest was made out.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations would not be treated as comments on the merits of the allegations or the investigation.
Case: Shankesh Prithviraj Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2823 of 2026, with Interim Application No. 2126 of 2026
Judge: Justice Shyam C. Chandak
Date: 30 June 2026
Result: Petition allowed; arrest declared illegal, remand orders set aside and immediate release directed, with liberty to the State to proceed with a fresh arrest in accordance with law.
Bombay High Court Declares Arrest Illegal After Police Failed to Inform Accused of the Specific Grounds of Arrest, Sets Aside Remand Orders and Directs Immediate Release
Police Cannot Justify Arrest by Giving Generic Reasons Without Informing the Accused of the Actual Allegations, Bombay High Court Orders Immediate Release
Facts
The petitioner, Shankesh Prithviraj Sanghvi, was arrested on 21 May 2026 in connection with FIR No. 226 of 2026 registered at Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 64, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 308, 351(2), 352 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The FIR was lodged by a woman related to the petitioner through family connections. She alleged that during a family trip to London in August 2024, the petitioner secretly took her obscene photographs while she was under the influence of alcohol. She further alleged that he subsequently threatened to circulate the photographs, compelled her to share objectionable videos, sexually exploited and repeatedly raped her, created morphed obscene images, contacted her through an unidentified Instagram account, made obscene video calls and demanded ₹50 lakh for deleting the material.
The petitioner was arrested at approximately 10:29 p.m. on the same day. He was produced before the Magistrate on 22 May 2026 and remanded to police custody. His objection that the grounds of arrest had not been properly communicated under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was rejected.
Further police custody was granted on 25 May 2026. On 28 May 2026, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. He thereafter approached the Bombay High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging his arrest and the remand orders as being contrary to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner was effectively informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter.
- Whether the petitioner’s arrest and the subsequent orders remanding him to police and judicial custody were illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.
- Whether the petition seeking a declaration that the arrest was illegal was required to be heard by a Division Bench or could be decided by a Single Judge.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that until he was produced before the Magistrate for the first remand, he had not been informed of the factual allegations forming the basis of his arrest.
It was submitted that the documents supplied to him merely mentioned the penal provisions invoked and contained generic reasons such as preventing further offences, protecting evidence, preventing absconding and facilitating investigation. They did not disclose the basic facts, accusations or specific material necessitating his arrest.
The petitioner contended that there is a fundamental distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest.” Generic reasons applicable to every accused cannot substitute personalised grounds containing the essential facts and material relied upon by the investigating agency.
It was further argued that the Magistrate failed to independently examine whether the constitutional and statutory requirements relating to communication of grounds of arrest had been satisfied. The fact that an advocate appeared and argued at the remand stage could not cure the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest.
Since the initial arrest was unconstitutional, all subsequent remand orders founded upon that arrest were also liable to be set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the intervenor-victim opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner had been called to the police station immediately after the victim’s statement was recorded and was made aware of the allegations against him.
It was argued that the communication issued under Section 47 of the BNSS stated that the victim had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and that the investigation revealed his direct involvement. This, according to the respondents, amounted to sufficient compliance with the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest.
The respondents further submitted that the petitioner had not specifically raised the plea of non-communication of grounds at the initial stage in the manner subsequently asserted. Such an objection could not be repeatedly raised at every remand hearing.
They also relied upon the principle that a procedural irregularity should not invalidate an arrest unless the accused establishes actual or demonstrable prejudice. Since the petitioner was represented by counsel and had an opportunity to oppose the remand, no prejudice was caused to him.
A preliminary objection was also raised that the petition ought to have been heard by a Division Bench because it sought a declaration that the arrest was illegal.
Analysis of the Law
Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that an arrested person must be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest. Section 47 of the BNSS gives statutory effect to this constitutional protection.
The Court emphasised the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest.” Reasons for arrest are general considerations, such as the possibility of absconding, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses or obstructing investigation. Such reasons may apply to several accused persons.
Grounds of arrest, however, must be specific and personal to the arrested individual. They must disclose the basic facts, accusations and material that caused the investigating officer to consider the arrest necessary. The information must be sufficient to enable the accused to oppose custodial remand and seek bail effectively.
The communication supplied to the petitioner merely stated that:
- the victim had lodged a lawful complaint against him; and
- the investigation conducted so far indicated his direct involvement.
The Court held that these statements did not contain the necessary factual details or basic allegations forming the foundation of the arrest. Merely mentioning the offences registered or stating that the accused was involved did not constitute substantive compliance with Article 22(1).
The Court also found that the arrest form contained no information regarding the grounds or reasons for arrest. The General Diary entry and the notice under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS only recorded generic reasons for effecting an arrest.
The prosecution’s assertion that the allegations had been orally explained was unsupported by the record. There was no material showing precisely what had been communicated to the petitioner before or immediately after the arrest.
The Court further held that representation by an advocate at the remand stage cannot replace the constitutional obligation to communicate the grounds of arrest. Legal representation and communication of grounds of arrest are distinct safeguards.
Precedent Analysis
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Supreme Court distinguished between generic reasons for arrest and personalised grounds of arrest. Grounds of arrest must contain the basic facts relied upon by the investigating agency so that the accused can meaningfully oppose remand and seek bail.
The Bombay High Court applied this distinction and found that the communication made to the petitioner contained only general assertions and not the factual grounds necessitating his arrest.
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court held that compliance with Article 22(1) is mandatory and that the burden of proving compliance lies upon the investigating agency. Non-compliance vitiates the arrest as well as subsequent remand orders, although it does not invalidate the investigation, charge-sheet or trial.
The judgment also imposes a duty upon the Magistrate to independently ascertain compliance with constitutional safeguards before authorising detention.
The High Court found that the Magistrate had failed to discharge this obligation.
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
This decision required written grounds of arrest to be communicated within a reasonable period and, in any event, at least two hours before the accused is produced before the Magistrate for remand.
In the present case, the State failed to establish when the police custody remand application was supplied to the petitioner or whether it was provided at least two hours before his production.
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to an arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The requirement is intended to ensure that the accused can effectively exercise the right to challenge the arrest and seek bail.
Ahmed Mansoor v. State
The Supreme Court held that an explanation of the grounds by the remand court cannot constitute adequate compliance with the obligation to furnish grounds at the time the person is arrested.
The Bombay High Court relied on this decision to reject the argument that any deficiency was cured during the remand proceedings.
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan
The respondents relied upon this decision to argue that the legality of an arrest should be tested on the basis of demonstrable prejudice.
The High Court distinguished the case, observing that it concerned cancellation of bail after filing of the charge-sheet and involved materially different facts. The Court held that violation of Article 22(1) could not be excused merely because the accused had not separately proved prejudice.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
The Constitution Bench recognised that procedural law confers valuable rights and that courts must protect procedural safeguards with the same seriousness as substantive rights. The High Court held that this principle had been overlooked by both the investigating agency and the Magistrate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the materials relied upon by the State did not establish that the petitioner had been supplied with the factual and personalised grounds of arrest.
The communication under Section 47 merely stated that a complaint had been filed and that the petitioner’s involvement had been found during investigation. It did not disclose the alleged acts, the nature of the accusations or the material requiring his arrest.
The first remand order was also found deficient. The Magistrate reasoned that since the petitioner was represented by an advocate who argued at length, the object of Section 47 had been fulfilled. The High Court rejected this reasoning and held that the object of communicating grounds of arrest is not merely to provide legal assistance, but to furnish the accused with sufficient factual knowledge to defend himself against detention.
The Magistrate neither recorded satisfaction that the grounds had been properly communicated nor meaningfully considered the petitioner’s objection. Subsequent remand orders could not validate an arrest that was unconstitutional at its inception.
The Court clarified that it had not examined the truth or merits of the allegations in the FIR. Its decision was confined exclusively to the failure to comply with the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest.
The preliminary objection regarding the Single Judge’s jurisdiction was also rejected. The Court held that under Rule 18(4) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, a Single Judge could decide a petition under Articles 226 or 227 arising from orders passed by criminal courts.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner had not been furnished with sufficient and substantive grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the Court:
- declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal as being in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution;
- set aside the arrest and the remand orders dated 22 May, 25 May and 28 May 2026;
- directed the petitioner’s immediate release from judicial custody; and
- granted liberty to the State to arrest the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if a case for arrest was made out.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations would not be treated as comments on the merits of the allegations or the investigation.
Case: Shankesh Prithviraj Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2823 of 2026, with Interim Application No. 2126 of 2026
Judge: Justice Shyam C. Chandak
Date: 30 June 2026
Result: Petition allowed; arrest declared illegal, remand orders set aside and immediate release directed, with liberty to the State to proceed with a fresh arrest in accordance with law.
