Supreme Court to decide whether grounds of arrest should be supplied to accused even in IPC offences

The Supreme Court has observed that its recent judgments directing the supply of grounds of arrest to the accused booked under special laws like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), are being misused by accused to demand such rights even in obvious offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra].A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih said that the accused in IPC cases were citing non-supply of ground of arrest as a reason to file writ petitions before High Courts instead of filing bail petitions.There needs to be a demarcation between grounds of arrest for offences under special statutes and those under the IPC, the Court underscored."We do not want machineries to misuse their powers and we also don't want accused to take benefit of some of our observations and take benefit under Section 438 or come under Article 226 altogether. Question is if a person is caught red handed, should he be given the benefit of the grounds of arrest issue," said Justice Gavai.He stressed the need to distinguish the supply of grounds of arrest as under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) from those of the IPC offences. "Whether there is predicate offence or not.. whether tainted money is used.. so there are these things in PMLA .. so yes, grounds of arrest is understood… but when IPC offences are committed… then… suppose caught with 100 kg Ganja.. but police says, ‘I will go to station and give grounds of arrest and arrest later’. The issue is taking this into account, Article 226 is filed, saying grounds not given, and thus, release me. Bail pleas are not being filed," the Court said..Towards this end, the Court framed the following two questions to be considered:1. Whether in every case, even when IPC offences are there, is it necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to the accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest?2. Whether in exceptional cases due to some exigencies is it not possible to furnish the grounds of arrest before or after arrest? Whether in such cases, arrest will be vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?Section 50 CrPC states that every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.The Court was hearing a batch of petitions, including the one filed by Mihir Shah, the accused in the Worli BMW hit-and-run case in July 2024, which resulted in a woman being crushed under the wheels. .The accused had argued that he was not supplied with grounds of arrest either before his arrest or at the time he was taken into custody on July 9 last year. He argued that this went against the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal case which was further extended to offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in Prabir Purkayastha. .Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Shah and argued that a ‘hard case’ like this should not be used to make the law redundant. “You will be astonished to know how many cases have no grounds of arrest... Just because murder is there and no grounds of arrest to be given is a pernicious principle," argued Singhvi..Advocate Shri Singh, appearing as the amicus curiae, pointed out that a distinction must be made between general crimes and offences under special statutes.However, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing in a connected matter, submitted that the law laid down in Pankaj Bansal is the law of the land under Article 141 and not just for PMLA. .The Court gave an example of a person killing 10 persons and then stating that grounds of arrest should be supplied before being taken him into custody. "Yes, hard cases are for us to settle law. Our judgments are being totally misused. Suppose someone kills 10 people in the Supreme Court, and then what do we do," the Bench demanded.The Court eventually said that it was issuing notice on the matter to settle the legal position. "We are not inclined to issue notice but (will issue) notice only to settle the legal position," the court observed. .Advocate Karl Rustomkhan, appearing in a connected plea, submitted that Article 22 ensures that the grounds of arrest are given."This court in Prabir Purkayastha held that the language used in Article 22(1) and 22(5) regarding the supply of grounds of arrest are identical.... The Court held that such a right is sacrosanct and cannot be breached," argued Rustomkhan..[Read the live thread here]