In March 2025, the Supreme Court, in Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh (Criminal Appeal No. 1518/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1662/2025), overturned the arrest and remand of Ashish Kakkar, citing the Prabir Purkayastha (2024) case as precedent. Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal constituted the bench that issued this order.

This decision was directly informed by the principles articulated in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], a May 2024 ruling by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta that mandated the provision of written grounds for arrest under Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS). The Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh order in 2025 reaffirms the importance of this requirement and underscores its ongoing application by the Supreme Court.

The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State had already established that Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS) mandates informing the arrested person, in writing, of the specific reasons for their arrest. This requirement is not a mere formality but a fundamental right that prevents arbitrary arrests and enables individuals to understand the basis of their detention and seek appropriate legal remedies.

In 2025, the Supreme Court considered a case where the arrest memo was issued, but the detailed grounds of arrest were not provided separately in writing to the appellant. The court, relying on the principles laid down in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), clarified that an arrest memo does not fulfil the distinct and mandatory obligation of furnishing the written reasons for the arrest.

Legal experts stress the importance of distinguishing between an arrest memo and the written grounds of arrest. While an arrest memo confirms the fact and time of arrest and the details of the arresting officer, the written grounds of arrest outline the specific allegations and legal provisions under which the individual has been apprehended. This detailed information is crucial for the arrested person to comprehend the charges against them and exercise their legal rights effectively, such as seeking bail and preparing their defence.

The 2025 Supreme Court decision to set aside both the arrest and remand highlights the seriousness with which it views any deviation from the mandatory provisions of Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS), as interpreted in Prabir Purkayastha (2024). The ruling serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies that strict adherence to these procedural safeguards is non-negotiable. Failure to provide the written grounds of arrest, even if an arrest memo has been issued, will be considered a violation of due process, potentially invalidating the entire detention.

This judgment is expected to significantly impact police procedures and trial courts' approach to arrest and remand. Law enforcement agencies must provide a separate document outlining the specific grounds for arrest in a language understood by the arrested person, in line with the principles set in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024) and reinforced by the 2025 ruling. Lower courts are expected to scrutinize compliance with this mandatory requirement before authorizing further detention.

The Supreme Court's consistent emphasis on the importance of written grounds of arrest reflects its commitment to protecting individual liberty and ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system. By clarifying that an arrest memo does not substitute this essential requirement, the court reinforces the right of every arrested person to know precisely why they have been deprived of their freedom. This empowers them to challenge their detention and seek legal recourse effectively. The 2025 ruling marks another significant step towards upholding the principles of due process and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals facing arrest, guided by the crucial precedent set in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024).

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565