Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
We have perused the reports placed on record to examine the second ground, which was argued regarding the grounds of arrest not supplied as required under section 48 of BNSS. The material on record only indicates that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner. The contention raised on behalf of the investigating agency that the grounds of arrest were intimated to the petitioner's father and his lawyer is rather surprising and shocking, as there is no dispute that even the petitioner's father has filed a complaint against the present petitioner. Thus, we see no reasonable ground to support such an argument that the ground of arrest supplied to the petitioner's father would amount to sufficient compliance under section 48 of the BNSS, particularly when the petitioner's father has filed a complaint against the petitioner. No material produced on record indicates that the petitioner had ever nominated or disclosed his father's or his lawyer's name for supplying the grounds of arrest as contemplated under section 48 of the BNSS. Therefore, we find substance in the second ground raised on behalf of the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were not supplied as contemplated under section 48 of the BNSS. {Para 26}
In the High Court of Bombay
Writ Petition No. 2989 of 2025
Hemang Jadavji Shah Vs State of Maharashtra
(Before Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ.)
Decided on May 30, 2025
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2145, 2025:BHC-AS:22305-DB
