-
by kapil
16 October 2026 11:10 AM
"An oral explanation of a memo that itself contains no grounds is not a communication of grounds in writing in a language the arrested person understands." Madras High Court, in an authoritative ruling, held that serving an arrest memo on a printed form that merely cites the statutory penal provision without setting out the specific factual acts attributed to the accused violates the constitutional mandate of communicating grounds of arrest.
A single-judge bench of Justice N. Ramesh observed that an oral explanation cannot cure the fatal absence of written grounds, ruling that any breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the accused to immediate release on bail.
The prosecution arose out of Crime No. 215 of 2026 registered under Section 420 of the IPC by Peelamedu Police, Coimbatore, on a complaint alleging that FIITJEE Limited and Suguna PIP School failed to refund caution deposits amounting to Rs. 2.62 crores collected from 262 parents. The petitioner, a salaried Regional Managing Partner of FIITJEE who suffered eighty percent permanent physical disability as an above-knee amputee, was not named in the First Information Report. He was formally arrested inside Puzhal Central Prison, where he was already lodged in connection with an Economic Offences Wing case, through a printed proforma memo in Tamil. After the Sessions Court dismissed his bail application, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.
The primary question before the court was whether serving a printed arrest memo in Tamil that listed only the crime number and penal section, coupled with an oral explanation in English, satisfied the mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest. The court was also called upon to determine whether the resulting violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution vitiated the judicial remand and mandated the grant of bail.
Prior Dismissal For Lack Of Exhaustion Does Not Bar Subsequent Bail Plea On Merits
The bench first rejected the State's preliminary objection that the bail petition was not maintainable due to an absence of change in circumstances following the dismissal of an earlier petition before the High Court. Justice Ramesh clarified that the previous application was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits solely because the petitioner had not first approached the Court of Session.
Because express liberty had been reserved by the High Court for the petitioner to renew his plea if aggrieved by the Sessions Court's decision, the present petition constituted the first substantive adjudication on merits. The court held that procedural exhaustion cannot be equated with a disposal on merits to foreclose judicial review.
Written Grounds Of Arrest Under Article 22(1) Are Non-Negotiable Across All Statutes
Addressing the substantive legal challenge, the High Court reiterated that the obligation to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is absolute and mandatory. The bench traced the unbroken chain of Supreme Court precedents, citing Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
Justice Ramesh underscored that the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) and statutory mandates under the BNSS apply to all offences without exception, including general IPC offences. Quoting the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Vihaan Kumar, the court highlighted that when a constitutional infringement under Article 22(1) is established, the court is under a strict duty to order immediate release, irrespective of any statutory bail restrictions.
"When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist."
Prejudice Need Not Be Proven When Constitutional Rights Are Infringed
The bench firmly rejected any requirement for the accused to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the failure to receive written grounds. Relying on the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, the court held that any non-compliance with constitutional safeguards fundamentally vitiates the deprivation of liberty.
The court observed that constitutional guarantees operate as strict checks on sovereign power and are not subject to tests of demonstrable harm. When the law mandates written communication, the total omission to do so invalidates the foundational legality of the arrest ab initio.
"When there is violation of the Constitution, question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise."
Oral Explanation Of Blank Or Coded Form Fails The Test Of Written Communication
Examining the factual matrix of the arrest, the court observed that the only document provided to the petitioner was a printed arrest memo in Tamil, a language the petitioner could neither read nor understand. The column designated for particulars of the offence merely stated "for the offence shown in column 3", which contained only the crime number and Section 420 IPC, leaving crucial columns marked as "Nil".
The High Court held that an oral explanation of an arrest memo that itself contains no narrative grounds cannot constitute lawful communication under the Constitution or Section 47 BNSS. Justice Ramesh noted that the police already had possession of agreements, bank records, and witness statements, and arrested the petitioner while he was already secured in prison, leaving no excuse for failing to formulate written grounds.
Constitutional Mandates Transcend Date Of Subsequent Court Orders
The court rejected the investigating agency's defence that the formal arrest took place on August 11, 2026, prior to this Court's explicit directions on arrest proformas issued on September 7, 2026. The bench clarified that the obligation does not originate from subsequent judicial reminders but directly from the text of the Constitution and the statute.
Justice Ramesh pointed out that the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah had already declared the universal application of this mandate across all penal statutes nearly nine months prior to the present arrest. Consequently, the investigating officer was legally bound to comply with the established law of the land on the date the petitioner was formally arrested.
Averment That Accused Is Likely To Abscond As A 'North Indian' Severely Rebuked
The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the investigating agency's counter affidavit, which claimed that the petitioner was a flight risk because he was "a North Indian". The bench stressed that a citizen's geographic or regional origin can never be cited by law enforcement as a basis to infer a risk of absconding.
Justice Ramesh recorded that such prejudicial assertions have no place in affidavits sworn by responsible police officers, particularly when the petitioner had lived and worked in Chennai for more than two decades. The court noted that the petitioner was a recognized salaried employee, an amputee undergoing medical care, and had validly explained his inability to respond to prior Section 35(3) BNSS notices due to his continuous incarceration.
"A person's place of origin is not a ground for apprehending that he will flee. Such an averment ought not to appear in an affidavit sworn by a police officer."
"When an arrest is vitiated, the Court has no choice but to release the accused, however grave the accusation. In very serious cases, accused persons are being released not because the case against them is weak but because the police did not do what the law requires at the moment of arrest."
Police Lethargy Undermines Victims' Rights; Departmental Inquiries Must Follow Lapses
Expressing profound concern over recurring procedural failures, the High Court observed that police indifference or ignorance forces courts to release accused persons in grave commercial frauds, causing immense suffering to innocent victims. The bench observed that the police were still deploying archaic printed proformas referring to repealed procedural codes instead of narrating actual factual allegations.
Invoking the binding directions in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol, the court ruled that an investigating officer's failure to furnish written grounds of arrest amounts to a dereliction of duty warranting departmental enquiry and an entry in their service book. The bench remarked that accountability must be fixed squarely on erring officers to protect both procedural fairness and public trust in criminal investigations.
DGP Suo Motu Impleaded To Enforce Statewide Compliance And Circulars
To remedy systemic failure, the High Court suo motu impleaded the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, as the second respondent. The bench issued peremptory directions requiring the top police official to file a detailed compliance report detailing circulars issued pursuant to Supreme Court judgments, the withdrawal of obsolete printed arrest memos, and statewide sensitisation training.
The Director General of Police was further instructed to issue clear directives across all police units that omitting written grounds of arrest will invariably trigger departmental proceedings against the defaulting arresting officers. The High Court scheduled the matter for reporting compliance on November 10, 2026.
Bail Granted On Stringent Conditions
The High Court allowed the petition and enlarged the petitioner on regular bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore. Taking note of his prolonged residence in Chennai, the Magistrate was permitted to accept local Chennai sureties.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer upon forty-eight hours' written notice served at his residence, surrender his passport, refrain from contacting the complainant or witnesses, and avoid tampering with evidence. Citing P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, the court empowered the trial court to cancel bail upon any breach of conditions and highlighted that any abscondence would invite fresh registration of an FIR under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The High Court allowed the criminal original petition, holding that the failure to serve written, narrative grounds of arrest in a comprehensible language is a fatal constitutional lapse that vitiates detention and mandates the release of the accused on bail. The decision firmly reinforces that statutory and constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS override the gravity of allegations and police convenience.
Date of Decision: October 7, 2026
