The Supreme Court on Thursday confirmed the interim bail granted to Shivani Agarwal, who had spent over ten months in judicial custody in connection with the high-profile Pune Porsche hit-and-run case. Agarwal, mother of a 17-year-old minor, was accused of tampering with her son’s blood samples following the tragic incident in May 2024, in which her son, while driving his father’s Porsche, allegedly ran over and killed two IT professionals, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that the constitutional requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest applies universally to all offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and is not limited to offences under special statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) or the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court emphasised that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest, in a language that the arrestee understands, renders both the arrest and any subsequent judicial remand illegal.

“The requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not a mere formality but a mandatory constitutional safeguard,” the bench observed. “If a person is not informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, it amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21, rendering the arrest illegal.” This principle underscores the broader mandate that procedural safeguards, intended to protect individual liberty, cannot be ignored, regardless of the nature of the alleged offence.

The court’s order confirmed Agarwal’s interim bail, while making it clear that the prosecution retains the right to seek remand or custody by filing an appropriate application before the trial court or magistrate. In such applications, the prosecution must specify the reasons for seeking custody, and importantly, must provide the written grounds of arrest to the accused prior to the hearing. This procedural requirement ensures that the accused is fully informed of the basis of their arrest before any judicial decisions on remand are considered.

This ruling emerged from the hearing of a batch of criminal appeals in which the accused contended that they had not been provided written grounds of arrest, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which has since been updated to Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The apex court clarified that prosecution may seek custody or remand only after the written grounds have been supplied to the accused and made available before the magistrate or trial court.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for criminal procedure in India. It reaffirms that constitutional safeguards designed to protect individuals against arbitrary arrest cannot be circumvented. The case highlights that compliance with procedural mandates, particularly the furnishing of written grounds of arrest in a comprehensible language, is not optional but a constitutional obligation. Non-compliance can render both the arrest and subsequent detention legally invalid.

In the context of Shivani Agarwal’s case, her arrest followed allegations that she attempted to tamper with her minor son’s blood samples to possibly influence evidence in the Porsche hit-and-run case. The incident, which drew nationwide attention, involved the tragic deaths of two young IT professionals, sparking widespread public outrage and intense media scrutiny. The case also attracted commentary on the role of parents and guardians in legal accountability when minors are involved in serious offences.

Shivani Agarwal’s legal team, led by senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari and assisted by advocates Dhvani Shah, Rishi Sehgal, and Nikhil Jain, with AOR Muskaan Khurana, argued before the Supreme Court that her prolonged custody was unlawful, citing the absence of written grounds at the time of her arrest. The bench’s ruling vindicates this procedural argument while simultaneously laying down an authoritative legal principle that extends to all criminal cases under the IPC and BNS, emphasizing that the right to be informed of arrest grounds is fundamental and inviolable.

While confirming her bail, the Supreme Court clarified that the prosecution retains the right to pursue remand or custody applications in the future, provided they adhere to the constitutionally mandated procedure. This includes presenting written grounds of arrest to the accused before the magistrate, ensuring that procedural safeguards are observed and that the accused is aware of the basis of legal action against them. This requirement also applies across all offences, irrespective of severity, ensuring a uniform standard of protection for the fundamental rights of accused persons.

The Supreme Court’s decision has wider ramifications beyond this particular case. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding constitutional rights, particularly the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and reinforces the significance of Article 22(1), which mandates that every arrested person must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for such arrest. Legal experts note that this judgment serves as a precedent, reinforcing procedural accountability in arrests and highlighting the consequences of non-compliance by law enforcement authorities.

In sum, the ruling provides relief to Shivani Agarwal by confirming her interim bail while emphasizing that any future attempts by the prosecution to seek custody must comply strictly with constitutional and statutory procedures. It underscores the principle that fundamental rights are not subject to compromise, even in high-profile criminal cases, and reaffirms the essential protections that the legal system extends to every individual facing arrest under Indian law.

The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, balances the need for investigative efficacy in serious criminal cases with the equally important mandate to protect individual rights, ensuring that no person is deprived of liberty without due procedural safeguards. The ruling is expected to have a lasting impact on how arrests and custody applications are handled across India, setting a benchmark for adherence to constitutional rights and due process.