Pankaj Bansal Written Grounds of Arrest
A Defence Checklist

The Supreme Court — A. S. Bopanna and P. V. Sanjay Kumar JJ. — held that, to give true meaning to Article 22(1) and Section 19(1) of the PMLA, a copy of the written grounds of arrest must henceforth be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Merely reading out the grounds, or permitting them to be read, does not serve the purpose, which is to enable the arrested person to seek legal counsel and apply for bail. The arrests were set aside and the appellants ordered to be released. The case was decided on 3 October 2023 and is reported as (2024) 7 SCC 576 / 2023 INSC 866.

Not by the text of the statute. Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 — in force from 1 July 2024 — requires every officer arresting without warrant to 'forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest'. That is the Section 50 CrPC duty carried forward; it does not in terms require the grounds to be in writing, and it does not track the Pankaj Bansal language. The written-grounds requirement is judicial and constitutional, resting on Article 22(1). The Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) extended the principle to UAPA arrests under Section 43B(1). In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288) the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, for offences under all statutes including the BNS. For defence purposes, the question "were written grounds of arrest provided?" is now the first procedural review point in every arrest matter under any statute.

The Supreme Court has not laid down an exhaustive list. The judgments settle two points: the grounds must be furnished in writing (Pankaj Bansal), in a language the arrestee understands, and — where writing is not possible on or soon after arrest — communicated orally first and in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours before production for remand (Mihir Rajesh Shah, 2025). The firm's review adds two working checks of its own: whether the document identifies the arrest provision (Section 19 PMLA, Section 35 BNSS, or the relevant special-Act provision), and whether it sets out the material behind the "reason to believe". Failures on any of these support a challenge.

A writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court is the principal remedy. The petition asserts that the detention is illegal because the arrest itself was procedurally defective. The Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427 held that the High Court, while circumspect, should not foreclose itself from exercising its Article 226 power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of personal liberty in an excess of state power. Where the High Court is satisfied that the arrest was illegal, it orders release; the prosecution is then left to re-arrest after curing the defect. Section 528 BNSS quashing of the arrest itself is an alternative route.

Only within a narrow window. In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288) the Supreme Court held that where the grounds cannot be given in writing on or soon after arrest, they must be communicated orally and then in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours before the arrestee is produced for remand; if that schedule is not adhered to, the arrest and remand are rendered illegal. The Court directed that this procedure govern arrests henceforth. Supply after remand therefore does not cure the defect. The reasoning: the purpose of the requirement is to enable the arrested person to seek legal counsel and apply for bail.

Pankaj Bansal review is the first defence step on Day 1 of an arrest matter. Counsel attending first remand examines the grounds-of-arrest document for the four working requirements. Where defects appear, the parallel-track strategy opens immediately: Article 226 habeas corpus / Section 528 BNSS quashing on arrest illegality, alongside (or in lieu of) the standard Section 480 / Section 483 BNSS bail application. Where the defects are clear, the habeas corpus route can produce release in days rather than the months a Section 45 PMLA bail typically takes. Where the defects are arguable, both tracks run in parallel and the court that grants relief first determines the outcome.

Yes, through Article 22(1) rather than the statute. Section 47 BNSS requires the grounds to be communicated forthwith for every warrantless arrest from 1 July 2024, but it prescribes no mode. The written-grounds requirement for arrests under the general criminal law comes from the Supreme Court — Prabir Purkayastha (2024), which said a person arrested for any offence has a right to be informed of the grounds in writing, and Mihir Rajesh Shah (2025), which held that written grounds are mandatory for offences under all statutes and set the timing (orally first if need be, in writing at least two hours before production for remand). CBI arrest defence reviews therefore include the same four-point checklist.

For active arrests, the Pankaj Bansal review happens at first remand — typically within hours of arrest. Counsel attends remand at the relevant court (Patiala House for PMLA / CBI; Sessions Court for general matters), examines the arrest memo and grounds-of-arrest document, and where defects appear, files the habeas corpus / Section 528 BNSS petition at the High Court within 24 to 48 hours. The shortcut path: where defects are clear, the High Court can be moved through urgent mention for same-day hearing. Speed matters because every day in custody is an additional liberty deprivation; the Pankaj Bansal route is procedurally simpler than the substantive bail route under Section 45 PMLA.