“ 1. In Sri Darshan (supra), the Supreme Court had negated the submission of the learned counsel for the accused respondent that an arrest would be illegal if the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C, now Section 47 of the BNSS. However, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the decision of the Supreme Court therein is to the effect that the grounds of arrest has to be in writing and has to be furnished to the relatives of the arrested person. Thus, there appears to be dichotomy of views in the different decisions of the Supreme Court. However, keeping in view the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it was held that if there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision should be followed by the High Courts, we are bound to follow the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, which in this case would be Vihaan Kumar (supra). Thus, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra), we are of the view that the grounds of arrest in writing would have to be made known, not only to the arrested person, but also to the family/relative of the arrested person.
