Absence of written grounds of arrest without demonstrable prejudice does not render custody illegal or warrant bail.

The applicant, Karan, sought regular bail in a murder case registered under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

On August 16, 2024, a vehicle collision led to an altercation where the applicant, armed with a knife, allegedly stabbed two individuals, Dharmender (who succumbed to injuries) and Vimal Prakash

The applicant was arrested on the same day.

The primary contention for bail was that the arrest was illegal and violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 36, 47, 48, and 49 of the BNSS, as the "grounds of arrest" were allegedly never provided in writing to the applicant or his relatives

The State countered that the grounds were provided in writing, signed by the accused, and recorded in the case diary

1. Whether the arrest of the applicant was illegal due to the alleged non-communication of the "grounds of arrest" in writing in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution and BNSS.

2. Whether the requirement of providing written grounds of arrest as per Mihir Rajesh Shah applies retrospectively to an arrest made on August 16, 2024.

The court applied Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS (formerly Section 50 Cr.P.C.), which mandates informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest

It relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that the mandatory written communication of grounds operates prospectively from November 6, 2025

The court applied the "prejudice-oriented test" established in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, which holds that substantial compliance is sufficient and a mere absence of written grounds does not render an arrest illegal unless demonstrable prejudice is shown

The court found that the applicant's arrest occurred on August 16, 2024, well before the prospective cutoff for mandatory written grounds established in Mihir Rajesh Shah

Upon examining the case diary, the court noted that the police had indeed detailed specific grounds for arrest—including CCTV footage and eyewitness identification—and that the applicant had signed these grounds

The court observed that during the first remand on August 17, 2024, the applicant was represented by legal aid counsel and raised no grievances regarding the grounds of arrest, only mentioning his own injuries

Applying the principles from Sri Darshan, the court determined that the applicant failed to show any "demonstrable prejudice," as he was aware of the reasons for his arrest and was legally represented from the outset

On the second issue, the court reaffirmed that prospective application of written communication rules meant the applicant’s prior arrest was not vitiated

The Court dismissed the bail application, concluding that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds, absent prejudice, do not render custody illegal or entitle an accused to bail in a grave offence under Section 302 IPC (now BNS)