The Karnataka High Court refused to set aside the arrest of a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that the constitutional requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest had been complied with and that the arrest could not be declared illegal merely because a physical copy was again served in court.

Case Details

• Case Title: Syed Ibrahim Thangal v. State
• Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
• Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
• Date of Judgment: 4 March 2026
• Case Number: Writ Petition No. 36302 of 2025 (GM–RES)

Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Arrest Under UAPA

Case Background

The petitioner, Syed Ibrahim Thangal, approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash his arrest memo, the remand order dated 10 October 2025, and all consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No.113/2025 registered by the Mangalore North Police Station.

The case was registered on a suo motu complaint filed by the police alleging offences under Sections 10(a)(i), 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitioner was taken into custody on 9 October 2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody by the Special Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his continued detention was illegal because a physical copy of the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him at the time of arrest, which he claimed violated constitutional protections under Article 22(1).

The entire writ petition turned on a single legal question:

whether failure to immediately serve a written copy of the grounds of arrest rendered the arrest illegal.

Petitioner’s Argument: Grounds of Arrest Not Properly Furnished

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the police had not complied with constitutional safeguards governing arrest. According to him, the physical copy of the grounds of arrest was served only before the Special Judge during remand proceedings, and not at the time of arrest.

The petitioner relied heavily on recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly:

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
• Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra

These rulings emphasize that informing an arrested person about the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard and that non-compliance can vitiate the arrest itself.

Counsel argued that unless the grounds of arrest are communicated properly and promptly, the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) becomes meaningless. He therefore sought immediate release of the petitioner on the ground that his arrest was constitutionally defective.

State’s Response: Grounds Were Provided and Acknowledged

The State opposed the petition and maintained that the petitioner had indeed been furnished the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest.

According to the prosecution:

• The petitioner was arrested on 9 October 2025 at 1:00 PM.
• A written document containing the grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest was served on him at that time.
• The petitioner and his son signed, acknowledging receipt of those documents.

The State further argued that the subsequent service of another copy in court did not mean that the earlier communication had not taken place.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor also contended that the Supreme Court judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah, which laid down stricter procedural requirements regarding written grounds of arrest, should not be applied retrospectively to arrests made prior to that ruling.

Remand Court Proceedings

The High Court examined the record of the Special Judge before whom the accused was produced on 10 October 2025.

The remand order noted that:

• The accused was physically produced before the court.
• The arrest memo, grounds of arrest, reasons for arrest, and compliance with Supreme Court guidelines were submitted.
• The accused acknowledged that he had signed the grounds of arrest and reasons of arrest along with his son.
• However, he stated that the physical copy had not been served on him earlier, after which the prosecutor served a copy in open court.

Based on the seriousness of the alleged offences under the UAPA, the Special Judge remanded the accused to judicial custody until 24 October 2025.

This particular observation of the remand court, that the physical copy was served in court, became the central basis of the petitioner’s challenge before the High Court.

Constitutional Safeguard: Informing the Grounds of Arrest

Justice M. Nagaprasanna undertook an extensive examination of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject.

The judgment discussed several key decisions, including:

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
• Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
• Kasireddy Upender v. State of Haryana
• State of Karnataka v. Darshan
• Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra

These rulings collectively emphasize that:

• Article 22(1) guarantees the right of an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
• The purpose of the safeguard is to allow the accused to consult a lawyer, oppose custody, and seek bail.
• Failure to communicate the grounds may render the arrest illegal.

The High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation that the requirement is not a mere formality but a “mandatory constitutional requirement”, and violation may amount to an infringement of both Article 22(1) and Article 21.

At the same time, the Court also noted later rulings clarifying that substantial compliance with the requirement is sufficient if the accused is effectively informed of the grounds of arrest.

Distinction Between “Reasons for Arrest” and “Grounds of Arrest”

The judgment also reiterated an important legal distinction highlighted by the Supreme Court.

The Court explained that:

• Reasons for arrest are general considerations such as preventing further offences, preventing tampering with evidence, or ensuring proper investigation.
• Grounds of arrest contain the specific factual basis linking the accused to the alleged offence.

Grounds of arrest must therefore convey the basic facts and allegations which led to the arrest so that the accused can defend himself during remand or bail proceedings.

High Court’s Findings

After examining the documents and the remand record, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had indeed received the grounds of arrest on the date of arrest.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that:

• The documents showed that the grounds and reasons for arrest were furnished on 9 October 2025.
• The petitioner and his son acknowledged receipt through signatures.
• The remand court’s observation about the service of the physical copy did not negate the earlier documentation.

The Court noted that the remand order itself contained a contradictory observation, because it recorded that the accused had signed the grounds of arrest but later stated that a physical copy had not been served.

The High Court interpreted this as meaning that another copy was supplied in court, not that the original had never been given.

Justice Nagaprasanna stated:

“A stray observation in the order of the concerned Court cannot mean that the records would get wiped away.”

Since documentary records clearly showed that the petitioner had been informed of the grounds of arrest and had acknowledged them, the Court held that the constitutional requirement had been satisfied.

Arrest Not Illegal: Petition Dismissed

The Court ultimately ruled that the case did not involve a failure to communicate the grounds of arrest.

Justice Nagaprasanna clarified that the situation would have been different if no grounds of arrest had been furnished at all.

However, since the materials on record demonstrated compliance with Supreme Court guidelines, the arrest could not be declared illegal.

The Court therefore held:

“Finding complete compliance with the judgments of the Apex Court, the petition lacking in merit, stands rejected.”

The writ petition challenging the arrest and remand proceedings was accordingly dismissed.

Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments