Judgment Summary: SC rules written grounds of arrest ‘must’ be furnished if police already in possession of documentary material establishing cogent basis for arrest

ON NOVEMBER 6, 2025, the Supreme Court held that in cases where the police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee upon his arrest.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih handed down this ruling.

The Bench further held that it is only in exceptional circumstances such as offences against the body or property committed where the criminal is caught in the act—where informing the grounds of arrest in writing upon arrest is rendered impracticable, that it would be sufficient for the police making the arrest to convey the grounds of arrest orally to the person at the time of arrest.

However, even in those cases, a written copy of the grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings.

“The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and, in case there is delay in the supply thereof, a note indicating the cause for it shall be included for the information of the magistrate,” the Bench ordered.

The Bench held that if the time frame for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest would be rendered illegal, entitling the release of the arrestee.

The Bench, however, clarified that upon such release, an application for remand or custody, if required, shall be moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing setting forth the explanation for non-supply thereof within the above stipulated schedule.

“On receipt of such an application, the magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice,” the Bench ruled.

How did the issue arise before the Bench?

On July 7, 2024, a BMW car, driven at high speed, collided violently with the complainant’s scooter from behind. The force of the impact propelled both the complainant and his wife onto the car’s bonnet, whereby the complainant was thrown to the side, and tragically, his wife became ensnared between the vehicle’s front left wheel and bumper. The driver, who was the petitioner before the Supreme Court, persisted in his reckless flight, dragging the victim, thereafter absconding without rendering assistance or reporting the incident to authorities.