The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it will settle the law on whether the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest to an accused would invalidate the arrest in all cases. .A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan took note of the issue while dealing with a plea challenging the arrest of Mihir Rajesh Shah in the BMW-hit-and-run case from Worli in which a 45-year-old was killed.The Bombay High Court had declined to quash Shah's arrest even though it took note of the submission that he was not furnished with the grounds of arrest. The High Court reasoned that Shah was well aware of why he was being arrested, since he appeared to have fled the scene of the crime and also allegedly tried to hide evidence, the number plate of the car.The High Court, therefore, held that it was not right to extend the benefit of Supreme Court judgments which have held that the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing would invalidate the arrest. The Supreme Court rulings referred to were the Pankaj Bansal judgment in which the top court held that in money laundering cases, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must furnish written grounds of arrest. Another ruling was the Supreme Court judgment in Prabir Purkayastha's case, wherein the top court laid down a similar mandate in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)..The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's dismissal of Mihir Shah's petition. Justices Gavai and Narasimha opined that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's findings. However, the Court recognised that there are significant constitutional questions involved in the matter, particularly regarding the interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 22 (1) says that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest and he shall not be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a lawyer of his choice."Though prima facie we do not find that an error is committed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we find it appropriate to entertain the matter so as to consider the legal position," the Court said.It, therefore, proceeded to issue notice in the matter to examine the legal issue..Mihir was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John along with advocates Jay Kumar Bhardwaj, Priya Darshini Arora, Siddharth Sharma, Disha Bajaj, Rishi Bhuta and Ishika Chauhan. .[Read Order]
The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it will settle the law on whether the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest to an accused would invalidate the arrest in all cases. .A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan took note of the issue while dealing with a plea challenging the arrest of Mihir Rajesh Shah in the BMW-hit-and-run case from Worli in which a 45-year-old was killed.The Bombay High Court had declined to quash Shah's arrest even though it took note of the submission that he was not furnished with the grounds of arrest. The High Court reasoned that Shah was well aware of why he was being arrested, since he appeared to have fled the scene of the crime and also allegedly tried to hide evidence, the number plate of the car.The High Court, therefore, held that it was not right to extend the benefit of Supreme Court judgments which have held that the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing would invalidate the arrest. The Supreme Court rulings referred to were the Pankaj Bansal judgment in which the top court held that in money laundering cases, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must furnish written grounds of arrest. Another ruling was the Supreme Court judgment in Prabir Purkayastha's case, wherein the top court laid down a similar mandate in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)..The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's dismissal of Mihir Shah's petition. Justices Gavai and Narasimha opined that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's findings. However, the Court recognised that there are significant constitutional questions involved in the matter, particularly regarding the interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 22 (1) says that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest and he shall not be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a lawyer of his choice."Though prima facie we do not find that an error is committed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we find it appropriate to entertain the matter so as to consider the legal position," the Court said.It, therefore, proceeded to issue notice in the matter to examine the legal issue..Mihir was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John along with advocates Jay Kumar Bhardwaj, Priya Darshini Arora, Siddharth Sharma, Disha Bajaj, Rishi Bhuta and Ishika Chauhan. .[Read Order]
