Bombay High Court Upholds Arrest Procedure Under BNSS, 2023: “Four-Minute Delay in Communicating Grounds of Arrest Satisfies Fundamental Rights Compliance”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition challenging his arrest. The court upheld the Sessions Court’s order, which directed the petitioner to surrender immediately. The court found no violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution because the grounds of arrest were communicated to him within four minutes of the arrest, which complied with the procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Offense: The petitioner was accused of serious offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc.), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Timeline of Events:
   • November 21, 2024: The petitioner was arrested at 22:56 hours by the Versova Police Station after an FIR was registered. The grounds of arrest were communicated to him at 23:00 hours.
   • The arrest memo and general diary entries corroborated these timings.
3. Initial Magistrate Order:
   • The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Andheri, held that communicating the grounds of arrest four minutes after the arrest amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The JMFC directed the petitioner’s immediate release.
4. Sessions Court Order:
   • The State of Maharashtra challenged the Magistrate’s order in the Sessions Court, which overturned it, holding that the arrest complied with procedural requirements under the BNSS, 2023. It directed the petitioner to surrender immediately.
5. Petitioner’s Appeal:
   • The petitioner filed the present writ petition in the Bombay High Court, challenging the Sessions Court’s decision.

Issues:

1. Was there a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution due to delayed communication of the grounds of arrest?
2. Did the Sessions Court err in rejecting the petitioner’s applications for adjournment during the hearing?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
   • The petitioner contended that he was arrested before the registration of the FIR and was not informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of his detention.
   • He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that grounds of arrest must be conveyed simultaneously with the arrest.
2. Improper Investigation:
   • The petitioner argued that the Investigating Agency acted in contravention of the BNSS provisions and his fundamental rights.
3. Denial of Adjournment:
   • The petitioner submitted that the Sessions Court refused his request for adjournments, which deprived him of an effective opportunity to contest the case.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Compliance with Procedure:
   • The State argued that the arrest was carried out in compliance with the law. The grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner within four minutes of the arrest, satisfying the requirements under Section 47(1) of the BNSS, 2023.
2. Documentary Evidence:
   • The State produced records, including the arrest memo, general diary entries, and notice of arrest, to demonstrate that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest promptly.
3. Representation Before Sessions Court:
   • The State contended that the petitioner was represented by counsel before the Sessions Court, and the rejection of adjournment applications did not deprive him of a fair hearing.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 35(1)(c) of the BNSS, 2023:
   • This provision allows police officers to arrest individuals without a warrant for cognizable offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, provided credible information is received.
2. Section 47(1) of the BNSS, 2023:
   • It mandates that a person arrested without a warrant must be informed of the grounds of arrest “forthwith” or as soon as possible.
3. Supreme Court Precedents:
   • In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court emphasized the arrested person’s fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest immediately and in writing.
   • In Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court held that oral communication at the time of arrest, followed by written communication within a reasonable time (24 hours), satisfies constitutional requirements.
   • In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., the court reiterated that delayed communication of grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi): Grounds of arrest must be conveyed simultaneously with the arrest.
2. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement: Oral grounds of arrest followed by written communication within 24 hours are sufficient.
3. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.: Any delay in communicating arrest grounds violates fundamental rights.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. No Violation of Fundamental Rights:
   • The court noted that the grounds of arrest were communicated within four minutes, which is reasonable and satisfies the requirements under Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. Procedural Compliance:
   • Documentary evidence, including the arrest memo and general diary entries, corroborated the timeline of the arrest and the communication of the grounds of arrest.
3. Adjournment Applications:
   • The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of a hearing due to the Sessions Court’s refusal to grant adjournments. It found that the petitioner was adequately represented by counsel.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner’s arrest complied with the procedural safeguards under the BNSS and the Constitution. The court also denied the petitioner’s request to stay the order.

Implications:

1. Reaffirmation of Procedural Safeguards:
   • The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for arrests under the BNSS, 2023.
   • It emphasizes that even a short delay (four minutes) in communicating arrest grounds does not amount to a violation of fundamental rights.
2. Judicial Interpretation of “Forthwith”:
   • The decision clarifies that “forthwith” does not mean simultaneous communication but allows for minor delays if the grounds are communicated promptly.
3. Impact on Future Arrests:
   • The ruling serves as a precedent for cases where the legality of arrests is challenged based on the timeline of communication of arrest grounds.

Also Read – Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Road Accident Case to ₹28.93 Lakhs: Recognizes 90% Functional Disability, Corrects Age to 22, and Includes Non-Pecuniary Damages for Pain, Suffering, and Loss of Marriage Prospects