The Bombay High Court, while stating that the grounds of arrest is not same as supply of chargesheet copy, held that an accused cannot demand copies of an earlier charge sheet or other prosecution documents at the time of arrest by invoking Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The bench of Justice Sandesh D. Patil and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi has ruled that the obligation to furnish copies of the police report and related documents under Section 207 CrPC arises only after a charge sheet is filed against the concerned accused and cannot be imported into the arrest procedure under Section 50. 

The petitioner was originally the complainant in an FIR registered at Miraj Rural Police Station in July 2022. During the course of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against certain accused persons while keeping the investigation open against others. Subsequently, further investigation allegedly revealed material implicating the original complainant himself, leading to his arrest on April 15, 2025.

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026 

Before the High Court, the petitioner did not dispute that the police had supplied him with the grounds of arrest as required under Section 50 CrPC. Instead, he argued that his arrest was illegal because he had not been supplied with the earlier charge sheet and accompanying documents filed against the co-accused under Section 207 CrPC. 

The petitioner contended that merely communicating the grounds of arrest was insufficient. According to him, the phrase “grounds of arrest” should include the statements recorded during investigation, the earlier charge sheet, and all documents that formed the basis of the prosecution case.

He further argued that the Magistrate was under a statutory obligation to furnish copies of these documents under Section 207 CrPC and that failure to do so deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to challenge his arrest and seek appropriate legal remedies.

To support his case, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasize the importance of communicating the grounds of arrest. 

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had admittedly been served with the grounds of arrest immediately after his arrest as mandated under Section 50 CrPC.

The prosecution submitted that Section 207 CrPC becomes operative only after a charge sheet is filed against the concerned accused. Since the petitioner had not yet become a charge-sheeted accused, there was no legal obligation to furnish him with copies of an earlier charge sheet filed against other accused persons. 

The Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of Sections 50 and 207 CrPC and concluded that both provisions operate at entirely different stages of criminal proceedings.

The Court observed that Section 50 forms part of Chapter V of the CrPC dealing with “Arrest of Persons” and imposes a duty upon the police officer to communicate the grounds of arrest immediately after arrest.

In contrast, Section 207 falls under Chapter XVI relating to the commencement of proceedings before Magistrates and casts a duty upon the Magistrate to supply copies of the police report, FIR, witness statements, confessions, and other documents after the filing of the charge sheet against the accused. 

According to the Court, these two statutory provisions operate in separate fields and cannot be conflated.

Rejecting the petitioner’s interpretation, the Court held that it would be legally untenable to require the investigating agency to supply an earlier charge sheet filed against co-accused at the very moment of arrest.

The Bench clarified that the petitioner would undoubtedly become entitled to receive copies of the relevant documents once the statutory stage contemplated under Section 207 arrives. However, those documents cannot be demanded prematurely by treating them as part of the “grounds of arrest” under Section 50. 

The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka v. Sai Darshan Etc. Referring to the Supreme Court’s observations, the Bench reiterated that the legal requirement is the communication of the reasons for arrest so that the arrested person can effectively exercise available legal remedies. Procedural irregularities, in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, do not automatically render custody illegal. 

The Court noted that the petitioner had never disputed receipt of the grounds of arrest and that his entire challenge rested solely on non-supply of documents under Section 207.

The Bench also distinguished the Supreme Court rulings relied upon by the petitioner, observing that those decisions dealt with materially different factual and statutory situations.

It held that extending the scope of Section 207 into Section 50 would amount to rewriting the statutory scheme and was contrary to settled legal principles governing arrest and criminal procedure. 

Finding no merit in the challenge, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.

However, the Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the criminal case itself and that all contentions available to the petitioner in any pending or future bail proceedings would remain open for consideration. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Circular Restricting S. 128A Relief