Absence of written grounds of arrest is a curable defect and does not warrant bail post-cognizance.

The accused, Jayanta Debnath, was arrested in connection with Amtali P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024 for offenses under Sections 127(1), 118(2), 109, and 3(6) of the BNS, involving a fatal attack on one Subankar Saha

The accused was initially granted bail by the Trial Court, but this was cancelled by the High Court expansion on 23.06.2025, leading to his surrender

A subsequent bail application was rejected on 28.10.2025 with a direction for a speedy trial

The present application seeks bail primarily on the ground that "grounds of arrest" were not communicated in writing to the accused at the time of arrest, allegedly violating constitutional safeguards and recent Supreme Court precedents

Whether the non-communication of written "grounds of arrest" at the time of arrest entitles the accused to bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, after the trial has commenced and previous bail applications were rejected

Whether procedural lapses in arrest can be invoked as a ground for bail at a belated stage when the accused was represented by counsel and failed to raise the issue during earlier remands

The court examined Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail

It considered the Supreme Court’s decision in *Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana*, which held that unconstitutional arrest due to non-communication of grounds vitiates continued custody

It also noted *Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra*, emphasizing the duty to provide written grounds of arrest

Conversely, the court relied on *State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan*, which clarified that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest are curable defects and do not *ipso facto* render custody illegal or entitle an accused to bail, especially when the accused was aware of the reasons and legally represented

constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22(1)

The Court observed that the accused is directly named in the FIR and that the investigation revealed sufficient incriminating materials

Crucially, the Court noted that the accused had been produced before the Magistrate multiple times since September 2024 and was always represented by counsel, yet the issue of "grounds of arrest" was never agitated until this stage

The Court reasoned that since the accused had previously been granted bail (which was later cancelled by the High Court), he had effectively extinguished his right to raise this procedural technicality now

Applying the principle from *Sri Darshan*, the Court found that the alleged lapse was a curable defect and that no prejudice was shown, particularly since the trial had already commenced with three witnesses examined

It held that the plea regarding non-communication of "grounds of arrest" was not a valid or "solid" ground for release at this belated stage

The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case with top priority, given that the accused remains in custody

The Trial Court records were ordered to be sent down immediately