Ajit Kisan More Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, in Ajit Kisan More Vs State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 3119 of 2025, decided on 11 August 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, examined whether an arrest could be sustained when the police failed to demonstrate that the accused had been supplied the grounds of arrest in writing. The petitioner challenged his arrest dated 1 July 2024 in Crime No. 283 of 2024 registered with Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune, and sought relief under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the corresponding provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He also challenged the remand orders dated 1 July and 4 July 2024 and the Sessions Court order dated 17 May 2025. The central grievance was not that he had been produced before the Magistrate beyond the prescribed twenty-four-hour period, but that the specific grounds of arrest had never been communicated to him in writing.
The prosecution arose from a dispute concerning the proposed purchase of a racing bull named Sundar. The deceased, Ranjit Eknath Nimbalkar, owned two bulls, Sarja and Sundar. According to the police version, Sarja had earlier been purchased for ₹61 lakh, while Sundar was valued at ₹37 lakh. The petitioner’s employer, identified as Accused No. 1, allegedly agreed to purchase Sundar after paying ₹5 lakh as earnest money, with the balance payable on 27 June 2024. A dispute allegedly arose during the meeting on that date, following which Accused No. 1 was alleged to have shot the deceased in the head. The petitioner was initially examined as a witness, but the investigating agency subsequently alleged that Accused No. 3 had instructed him to wash away bloodstains and clean the crime scene. He was arrested at 5:04 a.m. on 1 July 2024 on an allegation concerning destruction of evidence. These allegations formed the background of the criminal proceedings; the High Court’s determination in the writ petition was confined to the legality of the arrest.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, and the principles explained in Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 799. These decisions emphasised that communication of grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement rather than a procedural formality. The communication must enable the arrested person to understand the factual basis of detention, obtain legal assistance, oppose remand and seek release. The police authorities maintained that the grounds had been explained orally and in writing, relying upon the station diary, arrest documentation and an affidavit filed by a panch witness. They also contended that the petitioner’s involvement had been explained in the remand application. The original complainant opposed the petition and referred to other proceedings concerning the precise manner in which grounds of arrest were required to be communicated.
On examining the records, the High Court found that Clause 8 of the Arrest/Court Surrender Form dated 1 July 2024, which was required to contain the grounds of arrest, had been left entirely blank. The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded on instructions that the police could not produce any written document containing the grounds allegedly served on the petitioner or any acknowledgment of its receipt. Although the station diary claimed that written and oral information had been provided, the Court found that no supporting paper existed. It also examined the affidavit of panch witness Dilip Shankar Hirave, who had asserted that written grounds were prepared and handed to the petitioner in his presence. The Bench concluded that this statement was false and strongly criticised the conduct of the investigating authorities. The Court held that the contents of a remand application or general police diary assertions could not cure the absence of proof that the mandatory written grounds had actually been communicated.
Applying Kasireddy Upender Reddy and Vihaan Kumar, the High Court reiterated that the requirement under Article 22(1), read with Sections 50 and 50A of the CrPC, serves the substantive purpose of protecting personal liberty. The communication must be meaningful and capable of allowing the accused and his relatives to take prompt steps for securing legal assistance and release. The Court held that the constitutional requirement had not been complied with, and that the arrest stood vitiated. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the arrest dated 1 July 2024 was declared illegal, and the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baramati, was directed to issue appropriate orders for releasing the petitioner from jail unless his detention was required in another case. The judgment did not adjudicate the petitioner’s guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal case.
Cases Discussed:
1. Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court); Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051–3052 of 2023; 03/10/2023 — Referred to within the quoted Supreme Court reasoning concerning the obligation to communicate written grounds of arrest.
2. Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court); (2024) 8 SCC 254; 15/05/2024 — Referred to within the judicial quotation concerning the constitutional necessity of meaningful communication of arrest grounds.
3. Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Anr. (Supreme Court); (2025) 5 SCC 799 — Applied concerning the mandatory nature of communicating arrest grounds and the consequences of non-compliance with Article 22(1).
4. Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Supreme Court); 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228; 23/05/2025 — Principal authority relied upon for the requirement of meaningful communication of arrest grounds and the burden upon police authorities to establish compliance.
5. Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Supreme Court); SLP (Criminal) No. 17132 of 2023 — Referred to by the original complainant’s counsel as a pending matter concerning the manner of communicating grounds of arrest. The source does not report a final determination in that proceeding.
