Section 207 CrPC Duty on Magistrate, Not Police at Arrest Stage: Bombay HC Kolhapur Bench Dismisses Writ

The Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Bench held that Section 207 CrPC, which governs document supply after a charge sheet, cannot be read into Section 50 obligations at the time of arrest.

The Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste, a man who began as the original complainant in a 2022 FIR and was later arrested as an accused in the same case. Ghaste argued that his arrest on 15 April 2025 was illegal because the charge sheet filed against co-accused persons was not supplied to him under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Division Bench of Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi and Justice Sandesh D. Patil, writing through Justice Patil, rejected that argument in full, holding that Section 207 and Section 50 operate at entirely different stages of criminal proceedings and cannot be conflated.

From Complainant to Accused: How the Petition Arose

FIR No. 318/2022 was registered on 2 July 2022 with Miraj Rural Police Station. Ghaste was the original complainant who set the criminal proceedings in motion. The police filed a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code against certain accused, but kept the investigation open against others.

During the continued investigation, material emerged against Ghaste himself. He was arrested on 15 April 2025 at 20:59 hours and was lodged in Sangli District Prison. At the time of his arrest, the grounds of arrest were communicated to him as required under Section 50 of the Code. He was not, however, given a copy of the charge sheet that had earlier been filed against the co-accused.

Ghaste's counsel, Mr. Tapan Thatte, argued before the Kolhapur Bench that the grounds of arrest under Section 50 must be read broadly to include not just the formal grounds communicated by the police, but also the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code during the investigation of the co-accused, and the documents forming part of the earlier charge sheet. The failure to supply those documents, he contended, rendered the arrest illegal and entitled Ghaste to immediate release.

Mr. Thatte relied on two Supreme Court decisions: Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported at (2024) 8 SCC 254, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported at (2026) 1 SCC 500.

The Legal Question: Can Section 207 Be Imported into Section 50?

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Avinash A. Naik, took a straightforward position. The grounds of arrest were admittedly supplied under Section 50. Section 207 is triggered only after a charge sheet is filed against the accused in question. Since Ghaste had not been chargesheeted at the time of his arrest, Section 207 had no application. The APP further submitted that the ratio of Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah was not attracted on these facts.

The bench examined the text and placement of both provisions. Section 50 sits in Chapter V of the Code, headed “Arrest of Persons.” It places the obligation on the police officer to communicate full particulars of the offence or other grounds for arrest at the moment of arrest. Section 207, by contrast, sits in Chapter XVI, headed “Commencement of Proceedings Before the Magistrates.” It casts a duty on the Magistrate — not the police — to furnish the accused with copies of the police report, the FIR, Section 161 statements of proposed prosecution witnesses, Section 164 confessions, and other documents forwarded with the charge sheet under Section 173(5).

The bench was direct: the two provisions operate at different points in the criminal process and serve different purposes. Section 50 ensures that an arrested person knows why they are being detained, so they can seek legal remedies immediately. Section 207 ensures that an accused who has been chargesheeted receives the material the prosecution intends to rely upon, so they can prepare a defence before the Magistrate.

Why the Bench Rejected the Petitioner's Reading

The bench found Ghaste's attempt to stretch Section 207 into the Section 50 stage “totally preposterous, uncalled for and contrary to the settled law.” The obligation under Section 207 arises only when the accused is chargesheeted. Ghaste had not been chargesheeted at the time of his arrest. The charge sheet that existed was filed against the co-accused, not against him. There was therefore no basis for the Magistrate to supply those documents to Ghaste under Section 207 at the pre-chargesheet stage.

The bench also addressed the Supreme Court precedents relied upon by the petitioner. It turned to State of Karnataka v. Sai Darshan Etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, which the bench found directly applicable. That judgment holds that what is required is communication of the grounds of arrest so that the arrested person can avail of legal remedies and safeguard their rights. It does not require the police to supply charge sheet documents filed against other accused at the time of arrest.

The bench reproduced paragraph 20.1.7 of Sai Darshan, which addressed a situation where arrest memos and remand records showed the accused were aware of the reasons for their arrest, were legally represented from the outset, and applied for bail shortly after arrest. The Supreme Court had held in that paragraph that a procedural lapse in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent demonstrable prejudice, is at best a curable defect and cannot by itself warrant release on bail. The Supreme Court had also specifically observed in that paragraph that reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha in such circumstances is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts.

Applying that reasoning, the Kolhapur Bench noted that Ghaste did not dispute receiving the grounds of arrest under Section 50. His entire case rested on the non-supply of documents under Section 207 — a provision that had not yet been triggered. The bench found no basis to declare the arrest illegal or to order his release.

The bench was careful to clarify that Ghaste would, at the appropriate stage, be entitled to the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code once he is chargesheeted. The Section 207 stage would then come into play. The present order does not foreclose that entitlement. It only holds that Section 207 cannot be pressed into service at the Section 50 stage.

The bench also expressly stated that it had not passed any order on the merits of the case, and that all contentions available to Ghaste on merits while deciding any bail application remain open.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No. 4786 of 2025 on 24 June 2026. No order as to costs was made. The bench recorded that it had not adjudicated the matter on merits and that Ghaste's contentions on merits in any bail proceedings remain unaffected.