Section 47 BNSS | Non-Supply of Written Grounds of Arrest Vitiates Arrest:  Karnataka High Court Orders Release in Murder Case

"Constitutional Safeguard Under Article 22(1) Is Not a Mere Formality—Grounds of Arrest Must Be Specific, Written, and Understood by Accused", In a significant ruling with far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of personal liberty, the High Court of Karnataka on February 10, 2026, held that the failure to provide the arrested accused with written grounds of arrest in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), renders the arrest illegal.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, presiding over the matter, ordered the release of the accused, who was facing trial for a murder punishable with death or life imprisonment under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Despite acknowledging the gravity of the alleged offence, the Court concluded that the arrest was vitiated by non-compliance with a fundamental constitutional requirement, laying emphasis on recent Supreme Court rulings which reinforce the distinction between reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest, and the necessity of communicating the latter in writing to the accused in a language understood by them.

Arrest in Heinous Offence Alleging Fatal Knife Attack, But Procedure Found Deficient

The petitioner, Nanjunda (Accused No.2), sought bail in connection with Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Banavara Police Station, which culminated into Sessions Case No. 155/2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The case relates to a gruesome murder allegedly committed on April 4, 2025. The deceased, Lakkappa, had reportedly terminated Accused No.1 from employment due to theft, leading to a revenge-motivated attack. The prosecution claimed that both accused persons attacked Lakkappa with a knife, with the petitioner inflicting an injury to his ribs, and Accused No.1 delivering a fatal chest blow.

Statements of nine eyewitnesses, including two injured persons (CWs.2 and 3), and the post-mortem report indicating penetrating chest injury were placed on record to substantiate the charges under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

However, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri Pratheep K.C., argued that the arrest stood vitiated due to non-supply of the grounds of arrest in writing, as mandated by Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS, a safeguard which has recently been clarified by the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

"No Written Grounds of Arrest Were Supplied Prior to Remand"

The High Court, after securing the records of the trial court, categorically recorded that “grounds of arrest are not furnished to the petitioner” prior to his production before the Judicial Magistrate. The Court observed:

“There is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’… The ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” [Para 9, citing Prabir Purkayastha]

Justice Amarannavar drew extensively from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, where the apex court held:

“The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands.” [Para 10, quoting Mihir Rajesh Shah]

The Apex Court in Mihir Shah had further held that:

“Non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest… provided the said grounds are supplied within a reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to production for remand… Failing which, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee.” [Paras 54-55 of Mihir Shah; endorsed in Para 11 of present judgment]

Applying this principle, the High Court concluded:

“In the case on hand also, the investigating officer… has not furnished the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Therefore, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee.” [Para 12]

Merits Do Not Entitle Bail, But Liberty Demands Compliance With Constitutional Procedure

The Court was unequivocal in stating that on merits, the petitioner was not entitled to bail, given the seriousness of the offence and the prima facie material including multiple eyewitness accounts. The alleged act of stabbing the deceased in the ribs and the presence of two injured witnesses weighed against the petitioner.

Nonetheless, the Court held that the illegal arrest cannot be cured by the seriousness of the offence, reaffirming that compliance with constitutional safeguards is non-negotiable.

The judgment, therefore, partially allowed the bail petition only to the extent of declaring the arrest illegal and ordering release, leaving the door open for the prosecution to seek fresh custody after supplying written grounds of arrest in compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS.

Court Issues Administrative Directions: Notes Lapse by Investigating Officer

Justice Amarannavar also issued a stern administrative directive:

“There has been lapse on the part of the Circle Police Inspector, Arsikere Rural Circle in not furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner/accused No.2… and non-complying Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 50 of CrPC).”

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Hassan, and the concerned Circle Police Inspector by email, highlighting the Court's serious view of procedural non-compliance by the investigating agency.

Personal Liberty Reaffirmed Amidst Serious Allegations

The judgment stands as yet another reminder that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing is not a token ritual, but a constitutional bulwark against arbitrary detention. Even in the face of a serious crime like murder, the procedural safeguards under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS must be followed, failing which the arrest is rendered void in law, regardless of the strength of the evidence.

The High Court has thereby balanced the imperative of law enforcement with the non-negotiable rights of the accused, ensuring that constitutional compliance is not sacrificed at the altar of expediency.

Date of Decision: 10 February 2026