SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGH vs The State of Bihar Through Its Pr. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2204 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC011063872026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- Chitragupta Nagar District- Khagaria
======================================================
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh Son of Ramtapeshwar Singh Permanent R/o
Village - Berain, P.O.- Berai, P.S.- Hathauri, District - Muzaffarpur, Bihar -
843129, and presently at Adhivakta Nagar, Ballia, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Its Pr. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna. Bihar
2. Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
3. Inspector General, Prisons, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
4. Deputy Superintendent of Police-Cum- Sub-Divisional Police Officer- 01,
Sadar Khagaria, District - Khagaria, Bihar
5. Station House Officer, Police Station Chitragupt Nagar, District - Khagaria,
Bihar Bihar
6. Investigating Officer, Police Station Chitragupt Nagar, District - Khagaria,
Bihar Bihar
7. Nand Kumar Singh Son of Kedar Prasad Singh R/o Lohiyanagar, Ward No.
28, P.S.- Lohiyanagar, District - Begusarai, Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhijit Anand, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Singh, advocate
For the State : Mr.S.D. Sanjay, Advocate General
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, GP-21
Mr. Shashwat Agrawal, AC to AG
Ms. Shravya Pathak, AC to AG
For the Informant : Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Shankar Pathak, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 30-10-2026

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
2/24
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashwat Agarwal, learned AC
to AG for the State of Bihar and Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ram Shankar Pathak,
learned counsel for the informant.
2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the
following reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents,
particularly the Respondent No. 3 to produce the Petitioner's
son Divya Prakash before this Hon'ble Court, either physically
or through Video-Conferencing, and to justify the legality of
his arrest and continued detention;
(II) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside
the impugned illegal arrest of the Petitioner's son Divya
Prakash dated 05.06.2026 made by the Investigating
Officer/Respondent No. 6 in connection with F.I.R. No.
27/2026 dated 14.02.2026 registered at P.S. Chitragupt Nagar,
District- Khagaria under Section 108/3(5) of BNS, along with
the illegal arrest memo dated 05.06.2026, and declaring the
same to be illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio being in
violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India
and Sections 36, 47 and 48 of BNSS;
(III) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside
the impugned illegal Judicial remand order dated 06.06.2026
passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, Bihar
remanding the Petitioner's son Divya Prakash to Judicial
custody till 20.06.2026, the impugned order dated 20.06.2026
extending the Judicial remand till 04.07.2026, and all

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
3/24
subsequent and consequential orders of remand/extension of
Judicial custody, being consequential to and founded upon the
illegal arrest;
(IV) Issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondents to
forthwith release the Petitioner's son Divya Prakash from the
illegal Judicial custody in District Jail, Khagaria, Bihar;
(V) Issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondent No.
1/State of Bihar to pay compensation to the Petitioner's son
Divya Prakash @ Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
per day for his illegal arrest and illegal custody from
05.06.2026 till the date of his actual release (amounting to Rs.
58,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty eight Lakh only) for 116 days as on
28.09.2026 and continuing), within a period of four weeks,
with interest at such rate as this Hon'ble Court deems fit for the
period of delay, with liberty to the State to recover the same
from the salaries of the Respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 and such
other officials as may be found responsible, after conducting
inquiry and fixing their liability;
(VI) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby
penalty of Rs. 25,000/- per day be imposed on the Ld. CJM,
Khagaria, Bihar for continued illegal and unconstitutional
Judicial remand of the Petitioner's son Divya Prakash aged
about 43 years, (Male), S/o Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, R/o
Village- Shahabazpur Salem, PS-Ahiyapur, District-
Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842004 vide the impugned Judicial
remand order dated 06.06.2026, extended on 20.06.2026, etc.
passed by the Ld. CJM, Khagaria, Bihar and the same should
be recovered personally from the salaries and remuneration of
the Ld. CJM, Khagaria, Bihar;
(VI) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby
direction be passed to the concerned authorities for department
inquiry and action against the Ld. CJM, Khagaria, Bihar for
continued illegal and unconstitutional Judicial remand of the
Petitioner's son Divya Prakash aged about 43 years, (Male),
S/o Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, R/o Village-Shahabazpur

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
4/24
Salem, PS-Ahiyapur, District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842004,
vide the impugned Judicial remand order dated 06.06.2026,
extended on 20.06.2026, etc.;
(VII) Issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondent No.
2/Director General of Police, Bihar to initiate departmental
proceedings against the Respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 and all
other erring officials for the illegal arrest of the Petitioner's son
Divya Prakash, for preparation of a false arrest memo as to the
place and time of arrest, etc, for non-communication of the
grounds of arrest and for non-preservation of the CCTV
footage, and to place the outcome thereof before this Hon'ble
Court within a time bound manner;
(VIII) Issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondents to
produce before this Hon'ble Court the complete CCTV footage
of the premises of the District Court, Khagaria and of P.S.
Chitragupt Nagar, District-Khagaria of 05.06.2026 from 3:30
PM to 7:00 PM, the CDR and tower location of Mobile No.
6200096793 and all other mobile numbers of the Case IO of
05.06.2026 from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM, and the General
Diary/Station Diary entries of P.S. Chitragupt Nagar of
05.06.2026;
(IX) Call for the records of F.I.R. No. 27/2026, including the
case diary, the arrest memo, the inspection memo, the arrest
intimation, the remand papers and the order-sheets of the Ld.
CJM, etc. Khagaria dated 06.06.2026 and 20.06.2026, etc.;
(X) Pass any such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.
A. INTERIM RELIEF
During the pendency of the instant Writ Petition, kindly grant
the following interim relief(s):-
(I) Grant an ad-interim ex-parte order directing the
Respondents to release the Petitioner's son Divya Prakash
forthwith from the illegal Judicial custody in District Jail,
Khagaria, on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
5/24
including on personal bond, pending the final disposal of the
instant Writ Petition;(II) Direct the Respondents to produce the
Petitioner's son Divya Prakash before this Hon'ble Court,
either physically or through Video-Conferencing;
(II) Direct the Respondent No. 2, 4, 5, 6 to forthwith secure
and preserve the CCTV footage, CDR, tower location data and
Station Diary entries mentioned in prayer (VII) above, and to
file the same before this Hon'ble Court;
(IV) Direct the Respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 to file their personal
affidavits disclosing (a) the exact place and time of arrest of
the Petitioner's son Divya Prakash on 05.06.2026, (b) whether
written grounds of arrest were served upon him and upon any
family member, and if so, when and to whom, and (c) the
name and particulars of the person to whom information with
regard to such arrest with reasons and the place where the
arrested person/Petitioner's son is being held was given
immediately after arrest on 05.06.2026 between 3:45 PM to
5:00 PM under Section 48 BNSS;
(V) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
Case of the Petitioner
3. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The
petitioner as well as his son Divya Prakash (the detenue) are facing
prosecution in FIR No. 27 of 2026 registered with the Chitragupt
Nagar Police Station in the district of Khagaria, State of Bihar
under Section 108/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short
“BNS”).
4. The facts as revealed from the pleadings available on
the record would show that Divya Prakash (the detenue) had filed
an application seeking anticipatory bail bearing Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 38639 of 2026 in this Court. While the said

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
6/24
anticipatory bail was pending consideration, he was arrested at
Khagariya nearby or from within the premise of the Civil Court,
Khagariya on 05.06.2026, on the strength of a non-bailable
warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate. As per the plea
taken by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner’s son, Divya
Prakash was evading his arrest, therefore a non-bailable warrant of
arrest was issued and later on process under Section 82 Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') was also taken out.
5. After his arrest, he was served with the arrest memo
(Annexure ‘P/4’). He was produced before the learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate where his lawyer appeared through video
conferencing mode and opposed the remand. The learned
Magistrate has vide order dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure 'P/6')
passed the order of remand.
6. The petitioner’s son, thereafter, filed regular bail
application in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria,
which was rejected. He moved this Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous Case No. 69733 of 2026 for grant of regular bail
which was taken up for consideration on 29.09.2026. A learned
Single Judge of this Court was pleased to call for the Case Diary.
On the very next date, i.e. on 30.09.2026, the petitioner filed this
writ of Habeas Corpus at about 13:31:36. Prior to filing of the bail

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
7/24
application, the petitioner’s son had filed Cr. WJC No. 1063 of
2026 for quashing of the FIR. He had also filed Cr.WJC No. 1182
of 2026 for proper investigation of the case. On the very next day
i.e. on 01.10.2026, in the morning at 10:30 AM, Mr. Abhijeet
Anand, learned Advocate for the petitioner appeared through
online mode, made a mention for listing of the Habeas Corpus
th
case. This Court having found that the writ was filed only on 30
of September, orally asked him first to remove the defects and then
mention the matter but it appears that immediately thereafter on
the very next available working day, the petitioner moved the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and informed the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that the High Court has rejected the prayer for listing of the Case.
In Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No(s). 19292/2026, vide order
dated 12.10.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the
Habeas Corpus petition of the petitioner pending before the High
Court shall be listed before appropriate Bench on 27.10.2026
subject to removal of defects, if any.
7. In the aforementioned background, the matter was
listed before this Court on 15.10.2026. The Stamp Reporter
pointed out certain defects which were yet not removed. On that
day, this Court passed the order recording some relevant and
significant aspects of the matter. However, at this stage, the Court

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
8/24
is not reiterating some of those facts and issues which are not
directly falling for consideration in order to decide this case. Fact
remains that the matter was listed once again yesterday when this
Court found that the defects were not yet removed. This Court
again adjourned the matter vide order dated 28.10.2026. Today,
this case has come up and the Court has been informed that the
defects have been removed.
8. The solitary question which arises for consideration in
this writ application is as to whether the order granting remand of
the accused is required to be interfered with, by this Court on the
ground of non-service of the written grounds of arrest upon the
petitioner’s son at the time of his arrest on 05.06.2026.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir
Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2026) 1
SCC 500, Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India reported in
(2024) 7 SCC 576 and Dr. Rajinder Rajan versus Union of
India and another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 802.
10. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is, that even if a non-bailable warrant was issued against
the detenue that alone would not serve the purpose unless it is
shown that the warrant of arrest was duly read out to the accused

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
9/24
at the time of his arrest. In this connection, he has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kasireddy
Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2026)
8 SCC 275 (Paragraph ‘38’).
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
writ application as framed is well maintainable and in the light of the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner’s son would
deserve his release on bail on the ground of non-furnishing of the
written grounds of his arrest.
Submissions on behalf of the State
12. On the other hand, learned Advocate General
representing the State as well as learned Senior Counsel
representing the informant have vehemently opposed the writ
application. Learned Advocate General submits that the facts of
the present case would clearly show that the petitioner was well
aware of the accusations against him, he was in possession of a
copy of the First Information Report in which he was named
accused, he was also aware of the issuance of non-bailable warrant
and in fact he had filed an application for recall of the warrant of
arrest. It is also pointed out that the petitioner’s son had filed an
application seeking pre-arrest bail before this Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.38639 of 2026 which was pending
consideration, therefore on the face of these materials, the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
10/24
petitioner cannot be allowed to argue that the grounds of arrest
were not known to the petitioner’s son. Placing reliance upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1702 : (2026) 8 SCC 223 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Jhabra
Ram reported in 2026 INSC 1169 , the learned Advocate General
has submitted that the ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in cases of Sri Darshan (supra) and Jhabra Ram (supra)
would be applicable in the facts of this case.
13. It is also submitted that this Court has taken into
consideration the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
on the issue of compliances with the requirement of Article 22 of
the Constitution of India, in case of Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar
Ahmad Wani vs. Union of India through NIA, New Delhi
(Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025) . In it's judgment dated
06.10.2026, this Court has taken note of the judgment in case of
Sri Darshan (supra) and only after recording that the case of
Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani (supra) was clearly
distinguishable from that of Sri Darshan’s case, this Court
allowed the said writ petition.
14. Learned Advocate General has further informed at
this stage that after the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance has

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
11/24
been taken, the records have been committed to the court of
session. It is pointed out from paragraph ‘30’ of the writ petition
that the petitioner admits filing of chargesheet dated 11.07.2026,
order taking cognizance passed on 18.07.2026 by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria and registration of Sessions Trial
No. 508/2026 in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge,
Khagaria.
Submissions on behalf of the Informant
15. Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
for the informant submits that, in fact the records would show that
the petitioner has filed multiple litigations one after another. It is
submitted that in this case, though the petitioner’s son was arrested
th
on 5 June, 2026, he did not move this Court during the summer
vacation when the Bench was already available. He first chose to file
a regular bail application before the learned Sessions Judge and after
rejection of the same, he moved this Court for regular bail and after
about 3½ (three and half) months from the date of his arrest, only
when the learned Single Judge of this Court called for the Case Diary
th
on 29 September, 2026, on the next day, a writ of Habeas Corpus
was filed.
16. Learned Senior Counsel has gone to the extent of
submitting that in fact the manner in which the learned counsel for
the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court giving a wrong

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
12/24
impression that the writ of Habeas Corpus was not listed and his
prayer for listing was rejected by this Court requires to be
considered against his conduct. With reference to this Court’s
order dated 15.10.2026 and 28.10.2026, learned Senior Counsel
submits that this Court has taken note of the conduct of learned
counsel for the petitioner and has kept it open for consideration.
On merit, it is submitted that in the recent judgment in case of
Jhabra Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again
carefully examined the materials placed on the record in the said
case together with the constitutional and statutory requirements.
After taking note of the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
evaluated the effect of the alleged procedural defects in the light of
the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri
Darshan (Supra). By applying the principle of prejudice-oriented
test, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further went into the judgments in
the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) and held that the
requirement of communicating grounds of arrest is designed to
served a substantive purpose rather than a mere formalistic routine.
17. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards
paragraph ‘19’ and ‘22’ of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Jhabra Ram (Supra). It is submitted that in the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
13/24
facts of the present case, the writ application deserves dismissal
with cost.
Consideration
18. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Advocate General for the State and learned Senior Counsel
for the informant as also on perusal of the pleadings, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the facts of this case would lead to
an irresistible conclusion on the part of this Court that in this case
the petitioner's son was fully aware of the accusation against him.
He is a named accused in the police case. The petitioner's son had
filed an application for anticipatory bail in this Court being Cr.
Misc. No. 38639 of 2026 which was pending consideration before
this Court on the date of arrest. On 05.06.2026, when the
petitioner's son was arrested at Khagaria and he was produced
before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, his Advocate had
appeared through video conferencing mode and opposed the
remand. The remand order (Annexure 'P/6') speaks for itself.
Although, certain allegations have been made in the matter of
recording of the remand order, however, we find no substance in
such allegations on the face of the fact that the remand order is
well written order and there is no denial of the fact that the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
14/24
Advocate of the petitioner's son had appeared through online mode
to oppose the remand.
19. This Court, therefore, finds that the petitioner's son
was fully aware of the accusation against him. He had also filed an
application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant of
arrest issued against him.
20. In the aforementioned background of the facts when
we go through the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it is found that in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph nos. '50', '51' and '52'
as under:-
"50. Further, the above judgment has been
reiterated and followed by this Court in
19
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India
wherein it has been reaffirmed that grounds of
detention must be communicated to the detenu
in writing in a language which he understands.
51. On perusal of the above two judgments, it
turns out that mere communication of the
grounds in a language not understood by the
person arrested does not fulfil the
constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the
Constitution of India. The failure to supply
such grounds in a language understood by the
arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards
illusory and infringes the personal liberty of
the person as guaranteed under Articles 21 and
19 . (1981) 2 SCC 427 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 463 : (1982) 52 Comp Cas 543

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
15/24
22 of the Constitution of India. The objective
of the constitutional mandate is to place the
person in a position to comprehend the basis of
the allegations levelled against him and it can
only be realised when the grounds are
furnished in a language understood by the
person, thereby enabling him to exercise his
rights effectively.
52. From the catena of decisions discussed
above, the legal position which emerges is that
the constitutional mandate provided in Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere
procedural formality but a constitutional
safeguard in the form of fundamental rights.
The intent and purpose of the constitutional
mandate is to prepare the arrested person to
defend himself. If the provisions of Article
22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its
intended purpose of securing personal liberty
would not be achieved rather curtailed and put
to disuse.”
21. In the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court once again held in the following words:-
“20. It is no longer res integra that supplying the
grounds of arrest to the accused in writing
before the arrest or, in a given case, under
exceptional circumstances, immediately
thereafter, is the mandate of the Constitutional
guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read
with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
16/24
3
ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah
conclusively holds that any deviation from the
above principle would lead to the arrest of the
accused being declared illegal entitling such
accused to be released forthwith.”
22. In the case of Sri Darshan (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rejected the contention of learned counsel for the
respondents-accused that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of
arrest were not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating
Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC (now
Section 47 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Hon’ble
Court held that in absence of demonstrable prejudice such an
irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot by itself warrant
bail.
23. This Court had occasion to take note of the various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue in the case
of Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani (supra). The entire
discussions have been summed up in paragraph '36' of the
judgment in the case of Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani
(supra) which we reproduce hereunder for a ready reference:-
" 36. The up s hots of the aforementioned discussions
would lead to conclude this Court as under:-
3 . (2026) 1 SCC 500 : (2026) 1 SCC (Cri) 1

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
17/24
(i) The constitutional mandate and the
statutory mandate as contained under Article
22 of the Constitution of India and Section 50
of the CrPC leave no room for doubt that it
would be necessary for the investigating
agency/arresting authority, that a copy of the
written grounds of arrest is furnished to the
arrested person as a matter of course and
without exception. This has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj
Bansal versus Union of India reported in
(2024) 7 SCC 576:
(ii) If the arrest memo is simply a proforma
indicating that the grounds of arrest has been
conveyed, it would not be a compliance with
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) and
Dr. Rajindra Rajan (supra): and
(iii) Templates of the arrest memo containing
the statement to the effect that the arresting
officer explained the grounds of arrest to the
accused before the arrest, is no compliance
with the mandate of Article 22 of the
constitution of India read with section 50 and
50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Now
Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS); and
(iv) The judgment in Sri Darshan’s case
(supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court with a clear finding that the
arrest memos and remand orders reflected
that the respondents were aware of the
reasons for their arrest. They were legally

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
18/24
represented from the outset and applied for
bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an
immediate and informed understanding of the
accusations. In such circumstance, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that no
material has been placed on record to
establish that any prejudice was caused due
to the alleged procedural lapse. In the present
case, the facts are entirely different,
therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sri Darshan’s case
(supra) is to be read as explained in the case
of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) in paragraph ‘8’
of the judgment."
24. We have further noticed that, in it’s recent judgment
in the case of Jhabra Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has taken note of the prejudice-oriented test as has been laid down
in Sri Darshan's (supra) case. We reproduce paragraph '19' of the
judgment in Jhabra Ram as under:-
" 19. In evaluating the effect of alleged procedural
defects in communicating grounds of arrest, this
Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (supra)
definitively established that the governing principle
is the prejudice-oriented test. The Court
categorically observed as follows:
“32.5. While Section 50 CrPC is mandatory, the
consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a
prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged
procedural lapses. The mere absence of written
grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
19/24
illegal, unless it results in demonstrable
prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to
defend.
32.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily
on the alleged procedural lapse as a
determinative factor while overlooking the
gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC
and the existence of a prima facie case. It
noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in
the remand orders about service of memo of
grounds of arrest (SCC OnLine Kar para 45),
the arrest memos were allegedly template-
based and not personalised (SCC OnLine Kar
para 50), and eyewitnesses had not stated that
they were present at the time of arrest or had
signed the memos (SCC OnLine Kar para 48).
Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
[Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC
576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] and Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8
SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 573], it
concluded (SCC OnLine Kar paras 43, 49-50)
that from 3-10-2023 onwards, failure to serve
detailed, written, and individualised grounds of
arrest immediately after arrest was a violation
entitling the accused to bail.
32.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and
remand records clearly reflect that the
respondents were aware of the reasons for their
arrest. They were legally represented from the
outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
20/24
evidencing an immediate and informed
understanding of the accusations. No material
has been placed on record to establish that any
prejudice was caused due to the alleged
procedural lapse. In the absence of
demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is,
at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself,
warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the
High Court treated it as a determinative factor
while overlooking the gravity of the charge
under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a
prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal
[Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC
576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] and Prabir
Purkayastha [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC
(Cri) 573] is misplaced, as those decisions
turned on materially different facts and
statutory contexts. The approach adopted here
is inconsistent with the settled principle that
procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of
arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto
render custody illegal or entitle the accused to
bail.”
25. This Court further finds that in the case of Jhabra
Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed its
judgment in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra). In
this connection, the discussions made in paragraphs '20', '21' and
'22' of the judgment would be significant to take note of :-

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
21/24
" 20. In examining the constitutional object underlying
37 38
Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the
BNSS, this Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (Supra)
reiterated that the requirement of communicating grounds of
arrest is designed to serve a substantive purpose rather than a
mere formalistic routine. The Court observed as follows:
“32. The object underlying the provision that the grounds of
arrest should be communicated to the person arrested has
been very succinctly explained in Vihaan Kumar [Vihaan
Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799]. On learning
about the grounds for arrest, the person concerned will be in
a position to make an application before the appropriate
court for bail, or move the High Court for a writ of habeas
corpus. Further, the information will enable the arrested
person to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of his
trial. For these reasons, it has been provided by the
Constitution that, the ground for the arrest must be
communicated to the person arrested as soon as possible.
33. For the purposes of clause (1) of Article 22, it is not
necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the
offence. However, the information should be sufficient to
enable the arrested person to understand why he has been
arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested
person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by
the Court for the trial of a case.”
21. Applying these principles to the present facts, the record
clearly reflects that the respondent was fully cognizant of the
grounds for his apprehension and was effectively represented
by counsel at the stage of remand. The substantive mandate
of Article 22(1) thus stands meaningfully fulfilled, with no
demonstrable prejudice having been suffered.
22. As affirmed in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) and
State of Karnataka (supra), the constitutional framework
requires that the arrestee be informed of the grounds of arrest
but does not insist upon written communication as an
indispensable formality irrespective of the attendant
circumstances. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice or
denial of an opportunity to defend, an alleged procedural
defect in the mode of service cannot ipso facto invalidate
detention or entitle an accused to regular bail, more so in
cases involving grave allegations of espionage affecting
national security and sovereign integrity."
37. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases .
38. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
22/24
26. At this stage, we are reminded of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. and Another Vs. N.R. Vairamani and Another reported in
(2004) 8 SCC 579 (para 9) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed as under:-
“ 9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions
without discussing as to how the factual situation
fits in with the fact situation of the decision on
which reliance is placed. Observations of courts
are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as
provisions of a statute and that too taken out of
their context. These observations must be read in
the context in which they appear to have been
stated. Judgments of courts are not to be
construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases
and provisions of a statute, it may become
necessary for judges to embark into lengthy
discussions but the discussion is meant to explain
and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they
do not interpret judgments. They interpret words
of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as
statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v.
2
Horton (AC at p. 761) Lord MacDermott
observed : (All ER p. 14 C-D)
“The matter cannot, of course, be settled
merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes,
J., as though they were part of an Act of
Parliament and applying the rules of
interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to
detract from the great weight to be given to the
language actually used by that most distinguished
judge,…””

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
23/24
27. Having considered the facts of the present case in the
light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the
considered opinion that once the prejudice-oriented test is applied
in the present case, this writ application is liable to fail. As has
been noticed hereinabove, the petitioner's son was fully aware of
the ground of his arrest and it is not one of those cases in which he
was taken by surprise and that he was not in possession of any
information/materials to oppose the remand. The fact is that his
lawyer had appeared through video conferencing and opposed the
remand order.
28. In our order dated 15.10.2026 and 28.10.2026, we
have noted how this case has progressed and time of this Court has
been wasted. We have also taken note of the conduct and manner
in which the case has been conducted. At one stage, we were of the
considered opinion that this aspect of the matter was required to be
discussed and appropriate order is required to be passed but
considering that sometimes in legal profession, the lawyers
engaged by a party go on making submissions under some
excitements without understanding the effect of the same and as
we have been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner
himself that he was mostly dealing in service matters and perhaps
for that reason he could not take an appropriate view at the time of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2204 of 2026 dt.30-10-2026
24/24
filing of the present writ application, we have decided to drop this
aspect of the matter and not to pass any order as regards the
conduct etc.
29. Vide order dated 28.10.2026, this Court had imposed
a cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the petitioner which was required to be
deposited within two weeks from the said order. If the receipt
showing deposit of cost is not filed in the Registry within two
weeks from the said date, steps shall be taken for recovery of the
same in accordance with law.
30. This writ application, therefore, fails. It is dismissed
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
arvind/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 02.11.2026
Transmission Date 02.11.2026