Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: January 15, 2026
% Pronounced on: January 21, 2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1952/2025
LOKESH ALIAS MANISH .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Chirag Madan, Ms. Ravleen
Sabharwal, Mr. Sai Krishna Kumar,
Mr. Ronit Bose and Ms. Rachael Tuli,
Advs.
Versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and
Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates and SI
Aarti Yadav, SI Amisha, Main IO and
SI Kamal Kant (Arresting Officer),
PS.: Kapashera.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T
1. By virtue of the present bail application under Section 483 read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), the
applicant seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR
No.376/2024 dated 26.04.2024 registered at PS.: Nangloi, Delhi under
Sections 392/394/397/451/411/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
( IPC ).
2. As per FIR, on 26.04.2024 at about 01:30 PM, three unknown persons
unlawfully entered the complainant’s residence. One of the accused, armed
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
with a knife, threatened the complainant and demanded money and jewellery.
Thereafter, the applicant herein searched the house, located the cupboard key
and removed Rs.2,50,000/- in cash, consisting of five bundles of Rs.500/-
denomination notes, which they kept in a black bag . When the complainant
raised an alarm and attempted to resist, she was assaulted and fell down.
Subsequent thereto, all the three accused attempted to flee from the spot,
however, Moti/ complainant’s brother, Lucky/ complainant’s brother-in-law,
and public persons chased them, and one accused, who was carrying the knife
and the black bag containing the robbed amount, was apprehended in the
street. A call was then made to the Police Control Room ( PCR ), whereafter,
during the course of investigation, the robbed cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and the
knife used in the commission of the offence were recovered from the
possession of the apprehended accused. Upon inquiry, the said accused
disclosed his name as Lokesh @ Manish, S/o Virender, aged 27 years,
resident of H.No.B-81, Gali No.6, Seelampur, Shahdara, Delhi. The said
accused Lokesh @ Manish was arrested by the police on the same day, i.e.,
26.04.2024 and an Arrest Memo was prepared.
3. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to police custody, and all his
applications seeking bail were rejected.
4. Hence, the present application seeking grant of regular bail.
5. Mr. Chirag Madan, learned counsel for the applicant primarily
submitted that a bare perusal of the Arrest Memo dated 26.04.2024
demonstrates that the applicant was not informed of the grounds of arrest or
reasons for arrest, either orally or in writing, at the time of his apprehension.
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
Such omission, as per the learned counsel, constitutes a clear violation of the
mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47
of the BNSS. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 47 of the
BNSS casts a statutory obligation upon the arresting officers to communicate
the grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of arrest and failure to adhere
to this mandatory requirement renders the arrest itself illegal and
unsustainable in law. Resultantly, the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail on this ground alone. Be that as it may, the learned counsel further
submitted that as per Section 48 of the BNSS, it is mandatory to
communicate the grounds of arrest to the relatives, friends, or any person
nominated by the arrested person, however, the said statutory mandate has
also not been effectuated in the present case. In support of his aforesaid
submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the dicta of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and
1 2
Another ; Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) ; Pankaj Bansal vs.
3
Union of India & Ors. ; Thokchom Shyamjai Singh & Ors. vs. Union of
4 5
India & Ors. ; Nitin Kumar vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ;
6 7
Marfing Tamang vs. State and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana .
6. Mr. Chirag Madan, learned counsel lastly submitted that since the co-
accused/ Laxmi has already been granted regular bail vide order dated
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356
2
(2024) 8 SCC 254
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244
4
W.P.(Crl) No. 1929/2024
5
2025 SCC OnLine Del 584
6
2025 SCC OnLine Del 548
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
06.06.2024 passed by the learned ASJ-05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi thus, on
the principle of parity, the applicant, who is languishing in judicial custody
since 26.04.2024 i.e. for more than fifteen months be also granted bail.
7. Per contra , Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned APP for the State
submitted that though the Constitutional and statutory framework mandates
that an arrestee be informed of the grounds of arrest, however, the mode or
manner of such communication is not prescribed therein, as also that mere
absence of furnishing of written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto render
the arrest illegal, unless, it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of fair
opportunity to defend and therefore, cannot be a valid ground for grant of
bail.
8. Learned APP then submitted that reliance upon the decision in Mihir
Rajesh Shah (supra) is of no assistance to the applicant as the requirement of
communication of the grounds of arrest prescribed therein, is only applicable
prospectively. In any event, since the allegations against the applicant are
grave and serious in nature, involving the offence of robbery committed
under the threat of a deadly weapon like ‘knife’ as also since the robbed
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as also the ‘knife’ were recovered soon after the
robbery from the applicant, the present bail application may be denied.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP for the State as also perused the Status Report and the other
documents on record as also the judgments cited by them at Bar.
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
10. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasanta
8
Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee ; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amaramani
9 10
Tripathi and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , while granting
bail, the Court is to consider as to whether there is a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence
being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding
or fleeing if released on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
threatened.
11. However, since the primary issue in the present matter pertains to the
non-supply of the grounds of arrest by the Police Authorities to the applicant,
this Court shall deal with the same prior to adverting to considering any of
the aforesaid factors.
12. The right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and extends to every person within the
territory of India. It also unequivocally mandates that no person shall be
deprived of his or her personal liberty except in accordance with the
procedure established by law. As a necessary and auxiliary safeguard
therefrom, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India also imposes upon the
arresting authority a mandatory constitutional obligation to inform the
arrestee, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest, so as to enable the
8
(2010) 14 SCC 496
9
(2005) 8 SCC 21
10
(2022) 8 SCC 559
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
arrestee to effectively avail of legal remedies, including securing legal
assistance, opposing police custody remand, and seeking release on bail. Any
infraction, dilution, or encroachment upon this fundamental right/ protection
has been consistently and sternly deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in a catena of judicial pronouncements.
13. The requirement of furnishing the ‘ grounds of arrest ’ to an arrestee, as
distinct from merely citing the ‘ reasons for arrest ’ for the purpose of seeking
remand, has assumed considerable significance in light of the recent
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In its recent decision in
Prabir Purkayastha (supra) , following the decision of Pankaj Bansal
(supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn a clear and unequivocal
distinction between the expression ‘ grounds of arrest ’ and the ‘ reasons for
arrest ’, accentuating the constitutional mandate to strictly furnish upon the
arrestee the ‘ grounds of arrest ’ in writing and any violation/ infringement of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution, irrespective of the Statute involved, would
vitiate the arrest and the consequent remand as under:-
“ 20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court
that any person arrested for allegation of commission of
offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any
other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be
informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of
such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the
arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at
the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the
grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this
information would be the only effective means for the arrested
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody
remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would
tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
21. The right to life and personal liberty is the most
sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21
and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach
upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court
in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to the
following observations made by this Court in Roy V.D. v. State of
Kerala [Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 42] : (SCC p. 593, para 7)
“7. The life and liberty of an individual is so
sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered
with except under the authority of law. It is a principle
which has been recognised and applied in all civilised
countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty not only to
citizens of India but also to aliens.”
Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed
by Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, would have
to be dealt with strictly.
22. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest
flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any
infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the
process of arrest and remand . Mere fact that a charge-sheet has
been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the
unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused
and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.
x x x
49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and
‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the
arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the
accused person from committing any further offence; for proper
investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering
with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person
for making inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer.
These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on
charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be
required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating
Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.
Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must
convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was
being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending
himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the
‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused
and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are
general in nature. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
14. In this case, where the date of arrest is, admittedly , 26.04.2024, the
legal position in view of the aforesaid, as also since it has also further
reiterated and fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again in Vihaan
Kumar (supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) as then, assumes utmost
relevance.
15. Adverting to the case at hand, a perusal of the Arrest Memo dated
26.04.2024 ( Annexure P-3 ) as also the application seeking police custody/
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
remand dated 27.04.2024 ( Annexure P-4 ), it can be discerned that no
‘ grounds of arrest ’ has been supplied to the applicant. In fact, the same has
not been controverted to by learned APP for the State as well. In such a
situation, once such an allegation/ contention is raised by the accused
(arrestee), as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar ( supra ) ,
the onus was upon the arresting agency to establish otherwise, i.e. that there
was due compliance thereof. The State, in the present case, has failed to
show.
16. Hence, the whole process of arrest and subsequent remand of the
applicant are contrary to the constitutional mandate as prescribed under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as also the settled law reiterated
hereinabove. The non-compliance of the constitutional mandate thereof is,
under such circumstances, sufficient to release the applicant on bail, without
adverting to the other consideration required for consideration of grant of
bail.
17. In light of the aforesaid, the applicant is granted regular bail in FIR
No.376/2024 dated 26.04.2024 registered at PS.: Nangloi, Delhi under
Sections 392/394/397/451/411/120-B/34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the
applicant be released, subject to him furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- [ Rupees Fifty Thousand Only ] along with one surety of the like
amount by a family member/ friend having no criminal case pending against
them and further subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and
further subject to the following conditions:-
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
a. Applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court and/ or any
other authorities on the date of each hearing(s), and/ or if, as and when
called for, unless he is exempted by the learned Trial Court and/ or any
other authorities concerned.
b. Applicant shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi
without prior permission of this Court and shall ordinarily reside at the
address as per the learned Trial Court’s records. If he so wishes to
change his residential address, he shall immediately intimate about the
same to the I.O. by way of an affidavit.
c. Applicant shall join the investigation as and when called by the
I.O. concerned. The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper with the
police investigation and shall not play mischief with the evidence
collected or yet to be collected by the Police.
d. Applicant shall provide all his mobile numbers to the I.O.
concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and
shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior
intimation to the I.O. concerned. The mobile location be kept on at all
times.
e. Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not
communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution
witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case or try to dissuade
the witnesses from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police
Officer(s)/ Official(s).
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37
18. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
19. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for
necessary information and compliance thereof.
20. Needless to say, observations made hereinabove, if any, on the merits
of the matter are purely for the purposes of adjudicating the present
application and shall not be construed as expressions on the merits therein.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
JANUARY 21, 2026/Ab/DA
BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:21.01.2026
02:36:37