Absence of written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto render detention illegal unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.

The applicant sought his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) following his arrest on May 28, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 565/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, assaulted the complainant party with stones.

Specifically, the applicant is accused of pelting a stone at the chest of the deceased, Rambabu Sen, who ultimately died from a head injury attributed to co-accused Bunti Kushwaha.

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused, his HIV-positive status, and the alleged failure of the police to provide written grounds of arrest.

1. Whether the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest rendered the detention illegal, necessitating the grant of bail

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering his medical condition (HIV) and the specific nature of his overt act in the alleged murder

Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding punishment for murder

Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail

Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, which established that a delay or absence of written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto render an arrest illegal unless "demonstrable prejudice" is shown

The "prejudice-oriented test" from Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana

The principles governing bail exercise from State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra, emphasizing that the court must assess the prima facie case and gravity of the offense rather than conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence at the bail stage

The court rejected the applicant's contention that the arrest was illegal under the Mihir Rajesh Shah doctrine. It reasoned that per recent Supreme Court precedents, procedural lapses in furnishing written grounds are curable defects unless they result in a denial of a fair opportunity to defend.

The court observed that the applicant was well aware of the reasons for his arrest and was legally represented, thus failing to demonstrate prejudice.

Regarding the merits, the court noted that the FIR and case diary explicitly attributed an active role to the applicant (pelting stones at the deceased’s chest), establishing a prima facie case of involvement in a serious offense.

The court emphasized that the gravity of the charge under Section 103(1) BNS and the presence of supporting material outweighed the applicant's medical arguments and procedural claims.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the first bail application, finding the applicant's active involvement in the assault sufficient to deny relief at this stage.