Introduction:

In Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v. State [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337], the Madras High Court clarified the scope of Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that the provision does not require the police to give arrest intimation to the relatives of an accused in writing. Justice R. Vijayakumar ruled that communication through a phone call or SMS satisfies the statutory requirement, provided the information regarding the arrest and the place of detention is conveyed to the person nominated by the arrested individual.

The case arose from a criminal original petition filed by four accused seeking to set aside the remand order passed by the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused were allegedly apprehended while transporting approximately 200 kilograms of ganja intended to be smuggled to Sri Lanka.

The petitioners challenged the legality of their remand primarily on two grounds. First, they alleged that the arrest memo was defective because it did not properly contain the grounds of arrest. Secondly, they contended that the arrest intimation was not issued in writing to their relatives, which, according to them, violated Section 48 of the BNSS and rendered the remand order invalid. The High Court was therefore called upon to interpret the statutory requirements governing arrest intimation under the newly enacted criminal procedure law.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners argued that the arrest memo prepared by the investigating agency was merely a printed format lacking complete particulars. According to them, it failed to properly record the grounds of arrest, thereby violating the constitutional and statutory safeguards available to an arrested person.

They further submitted that there is a clear distinction between the “reasons for arrest” and the “grounds of arrest.” It was argued that the grounds of arrest must contain sufficient details available with the investigating officer explaining why arrest became necessary. According to the petitioners, these grounds ought to have been communicated not only to the accused but also to their family members in writing.

The petitioners maintained that the absence of written communication to their relatives violated Section 48 of the BNSS. Since the statutory safeguards were allegedly not followed, they contended that the remand order passed by the Magistrate deserved to be set aside.

The State opposed the petition and submitted that the arrest memo clearly disclosed the grounds of arrest. It pointed out that the accused had been apprehended while transporting about 200 kilograms of ganja for alleged smuggling into Sri Lanka. The prosecution argued that the grounds of arrest were explained to each accused, who acknowledged the same by signing the arrest memo in the presence of witnesses.

Regarding the challenge under Section 48 of the BNSS, the State submitted that the relatives nominated by the accused had been informed immediately through phone calls and SMS based on the contact details furnished by the arrested persons. It argued that the BNSS nowhere mandates that such communication must necessarily be in writing.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice R. Vijayakumar dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of the remand order. The Court first examined the challenge relating to the arrest memo and found no substance in the petitioners’ contention that it was defective.

The Court observed that the arrest memo specifically recorded that the accused were arrested while allegedly transporting a large quantity of ganja intended for smuggling into Sri Lanka. The document clearly contained the grounds of arrest, and the accused had signed it after the grounds were explained to them in the presence of witnesses. In these circumstances, the Court held that the statutory requirement of informing the arrested persons about the grounds of arrest had been fully complied with.

The principal issue before the Court concerned the interpretation of Section 48 of the BNSS. Analysing the provision, the Court noted that it merely requires the police to inform the relatives, friends or any other person nominated by the arrested individual about the arrest and the place where the person is being detained.

The Court emphasised that the language of Section 48 does not prescribe any particular mode of communication. It neither requires such information to be conveyed through a written notice nor mandates any specific format for communicating the arrest.

In the present case, the investigating agency had informed the relatives through phone calls and SMS using the contact details provided by the accused themselves. The remand order also specifically recorded that the arrest intimation had already been given.

Significantly, the Court observed that none of the relatives of the accused had filed any affidavit alleging that they were not informed about the arrest or the place of detention. In the absence of any such material, the petitioners’ argument that written communication alone satisfies Section 48 could not be accepted.

The Bench therefore held that communication through phone calls or SMS constitutes valid compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS. Since the statute only requires that the information be conveyed, the Court declined to read into the provision an additional requirement of written communication which the legislature itself had not incorporated.

The Court also observed that the challenge to the remand order appeared to be an afterthought. It noted that the petition had been filed only after the petitioners failed to secure regular bail following the filing of the charge sheet. This circumstance, according to the Court, weakened the credibility of the objections raised against the arrest procedure.

Finding that both the arrest memo and the arrest intimation complied with the requirements of law, the Court concluded that there was no procedural illegality affecting the validity of the remand order. Accordingly, the criminal original petition was dismissed.

The judgment provides important guidance on the interpretation of Section 48 of the BNSS by clarifying that the statute focuses on effective communication of arrest information rather than the mode in which such communication is made. It reinforces that telephonic communication or SMS is legally sufficient to fulfil the obligation of informing the relatives or nominated persons about an arrest, provided the information is actually conveyed.