New Delhi, Apr 22 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday called for striking a balance between the state machineries not misusing their powers and the accused not taking advantage of its observations to go free.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih was dealing with questions, including whether it would be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest in every case, including even those arising out of offences under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.

“We want to strike a balance. On the one hand, we don’t want the machineries to misuse their power. On the other hand, we also don’t want that the accused take advantage of some of our observations and get free,” Justice Gavai observed during the hearing.

The apex court said the other question that arose was if the arrest would be vitiated if in exceptional cases, on account of certain exigencies, it would not be possible to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before or immediately after the arrest.

The bench reserved its verdict on these legal questions.

In February this year, the apex court, in a separate judgement, said the requirement of informing grounds of arrest to an accused was not a “formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement”.

A non-compliance by the police, it said, would amount to violation of fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution.

In May last year, the top court had declared as “invalid” the arrest of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and ordered his release. Purkayastha was arrested in a case lodged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

In its judgement, the apex court said any person arrested over allegations of commission of offences under the UAPA or other offences has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing.

On Tuesday, the bench said the question was whether an accused, who was caught red-handed, should be permitted to get the benefit of the court’s observations on furnishing grounds of arrest.

“Should we forget all the ground realities?” the bench asked.

Some of its verdicts were misused also, it pointed out further.

The counsel appearing for one of the petitioners said that furnishing the grounds of arrest to an accused was of vital importance as there was a presumption of innocence until proved guilty by a court of law.

The bench was dealing with three separate pleas arising out of the orders of the Bombay High Court.

One of the pleas was filed by an accused in a BMW hit-and-run case of July 2024 in which a woman had lost her life in Mumbai.

He challenged the high court’s November 2024 order which rejected his plea seeking to declare his arrest as illegal.

Before the high court, the accused raised the issue of alleged non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest before remanding him to custody.

Another petition in the apex court was filed by a woman, the mother of a juvenile who was allegedly involved in the May last year Porsche car crash incident in Pune in which two persons had died.

The woman was accused of allegedly switching of the juvenile’s blood samples so as to establish that he was not drunk when the accident took place.

She challenged in the apex court an order of the high court which referred a batch of pleas raising the issue concerning grounds of arrest for consideration by a larger bench.

The third petition in the top court also raised the issue over the high court’s order referring the batch of pleas for consideration by a larger bench. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK