Arrest & Related Matters

In Sujit Das v. Union of India [2026: INSC: 1196], the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on personal liberty. The Court held that the 24-hour constitutional deadline to produce an arrested person before a magistrate begins the exact moment their liberty is effectively curtailed through detention, rather than when the law enforcement agency officially logs a "formal arrest".

The Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram [2026 INSC 1169] has held that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or denial of an opportunity to defend, an alleged procedural defect in the mode of service cannot ipso facto invalidate detention or entitle an accused to regular bail, more so in cases involving grave allegations of espionage affecting national security and sovereign integrity.

In Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab [2026 INSC 1022], the Supreme Court held that an arrest is rendered illegal where the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused in writing. The Court further directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a police officer who effects an arrest without furnishing such grounds.

In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau Of Investigation [2026 INSC 115], the Supreme Court considered whether notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) are to be mandatorily issued in all cases, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years.

In the landmark judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) the Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at reforming the process of granting bail, and preventing the unnecessary arrest and incarceration of individuals:

The requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS, and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal a series of Supreme Court judgments such as Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356).

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610], the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgement regarding arrest, custody and related matters regarding arrest of a suspected person by police, as an interim measure till legal provisions were made.

In the landmark case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR 2014 SC 2756], the Supreme Court established strict protocols to prevent unnecessary arrests. The Court emphasized that police officers must not arrest accused persons routinely, and Magistrates must not authorize detention in a casual or mechanical manner.

In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. The State of Maharashtra and Another [2025 INSC 1288], the Supreme Court observed that a person arrested for any offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) must be supplied with the written grounds of arrest in a language that he or she understands. Otherwise, the arrest and subsequent remand will be rendered illegal. This stipulation was previously limited to UAPA/PMLA offences.

When a Session Court while dealing with a bail application finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution have been violated, the court can release him on bail as the arrest in the case is vitiated, observed the Supreme Court in Muhammed Nashif U v. State of Kerala & Anr [2025: KER:89635].