Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the warrant referred to was the warrant 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 issued under Section 70 of Cr.P.C. (Section 72 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS') in Form No.3 of Schedule II. However, in this case, the warrant issued was not under Section 72 of BNSS in Form No.3. In fact, it is an order issued under Section 302 of BNSS (Section 267 of Cr.P.C.) in Form No.37 of Schedule II. I see no reason not to extend the finding concerning the warrant issued under Section 72 of BNSS in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) to the order issued under Section 302 of BNSS in Form No.37 as well. The order in Form No.37 is addressed to the officer in charge of the jail where the applicant is lodged. In paragraph No.3 of Form No.37, there is a specific direction to the officer-in-charge of the jail to inform the accused of the contents of the order and to deliver her the attached copy thereof. Therefore, I hold that when the formal arrest of an accused is recorded pursuant to an order/production warrant issued under Section 302 of BNSS, there is no requirement to inform her of the grounds for her arrest separately. The order/warrant in Form No.37 itself is sufficient to comply with the requirement. However, even in such cases, the communication of the grounds for arrest to the relative of the accused is mandatory [See Ashique v. State of Kerala (2026 2026:KER:22320 BAIL APPL. NO. 1273 OF 2026 KHC OnLine 213). In this case, since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the relatives of the applicant in accordance with the law, the arrest stands vitiated, and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.