Supreme Court considers referring provision on furnishing arrest grounds to larger Bench due to conflicting decisions.
The Supreme Court indicated it might refer to a larger Bench the question of whether grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing to an accused. This consideration arose during the Meghalaya government's appeal against bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murder. The State argued that written grounds were provided, with only a 'typographical error' in the arrest memo. However, the accused's counsel contended that the furnished document was a mere pro forma, not a meaningful fulfillment of the constitutional mandate, highlighting conflicting coordinate Bench judgments on the matter.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court is considering referring the issue of furnishing written grounds of arrest to a larger Bench.
- This arises from conflicting judgments by coordinate Benches on the mandatory nature of written arrest grounds.
- The Meghalaya government claimed compliance, citing a 'typographical error' in the arrest memo.
- The accused's counsel argued the furnished document was a pro forma, not a meaningful communication of grounds.
Exam Facts
- Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar.
- Meghalaya government's appeal against bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi.
- Typographical error referred to Section 403 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103 (murder).
- Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.