Supreme Court Confirms Shivani Agarwal’s Bail, Mandates Written Grounds of Arrest in All Cases
In a significant ruling that strengthens constitutional protections for the accused, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest to an accused person renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. The judgment also confirmed the bail of Shivani Agarwal, who was arrested in connection with the high-profile Pune Porsche crash case.
Case Background: Pune Porsche Crash and Allegations
The case stems from the May 19, 2024, Pune incident where a minor, while driving a Porsche allegedly owned by his father, ran over and killed two IT professionals — Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. The incident triggered nationwide outrage over reckless driving and alleged procedural lapses during investigation.
The minor’s mother, Shivani Agarwal, was arrested for allegedly tampering with her son’s blood samples to shield him from legal consequences. She had been in judicial custody for over ten months before the Supreme Court granted ad-interim bail on April 22, 2025, later confirmed through this ruling.
Bench and Representation
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Appearing for Shivani Agarwal were Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, along with Advocates Dhvani Shah, Rishi Sehgal, Nikhil Jain, and Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Muskaan Khurana.
The Supreme Court’s Observation on Written Grounds of Arrest
The Court held that the requirement to provide written grounds of arrest applies to all offences, including those under:
-
Indian Penal Code (IPC), now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; and
-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
This obligation is not confined to special statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) or the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Bench clarified that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
-
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty:
States that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Arbitrary arrest without proper justification or written grounds violates this principle. -
Article 22(1) – Protection of Rights of Arrestees:
Ensures that a person who is arrested must be informed of the reasons for their arrest “as soon as may be” and has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
The Supreme Court affirmed that this information must be communicated in writing, and in the language understood by the accused, to make this right meaningful.
Statutory Framework: BNSS and PMLA
-
Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023) mandates that every person arrested without a warrant must be informed of the full particulars of the offence or the grounds of arrest.
-
Under special laws such as PMLA and UAPA, the requirement of providing written grounds of arrest had already been recognized by courts. This ruling, however, extends that requirement to all categories of offences, including ordinary criminal cases.
Judicial Precedents Cited
The Court’s reasoning builds upon and expands previous judicial interpretations, including:
-
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) –
The Supreme Court held that under the PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must provide written grounds of arrest to the accused. Oral communication was deemed insufficient. -
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) –
The Court applied similar reasoning under the UAPA, ruling that written grounds are mandatory to uphold procedural fairness and constitutional rights.
The present judgment generalizes this principle, confirming that Articles 21 and 22(1) are not statute-specific, and therefore apply to all arrests under Indian criminal law.
Court’s Direction to the Prosecution
While confirming Agarwal’s bail, the Supreme Court left the door open for the prosecution to seek remand or custody by filing an application before the trial court. However, it mandated that:
-
The reasons for seeking remand must be clearly stated; and
-
The written grounds of arrest must be supplied to the accused before the magistrate or trial court.
This procedural safeguard ensures that no person can be remanded or detained further without full knowledge of the legal basis of their arrest.
Significance of the Ruling
This ruling represents a landmark expansion of constitutional due process. It ensures that the fundamental rights of individuals are protected not only under special statutes but also in ordinary criminal prosecutions.
The judgment establishes three crucial safeguards:
-
Transparency – Arresting authorities must disclose written reasons to prevent misuse of power.
-
Accountability – Failure to comply renders both arrest and remand illegal.
-
Fair Trial Preparation – Written grounds help the accused and their counsel prepare an effective defense, ensuring that the principle of natural justice is upheld.
Conclusion
By reaffirming that written grounds of arrest are mandatory in every case, the Supreme Court has fortified India’s constitutional framework of liberty and justice.
This judgment not only upholds individual dignity under Article 21 but also sets a clear procedural precedent that will shape how law enforcement agencies operate going forward.
The decision in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2189 and 2190 of 2025 thus becomes a milestone in India’s jurisprudence, reaffirming that liberty cannot be curtailed without transparency, accountability, and written justification.

Comments
Post a Comment