Failure to communicate grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) and justifies the grant of bail.

The applicant, a former Station House Officer (SHO), was arrested on October 28, 2025, in connection with the 2015 death of one Makhan Kushwah.

Initially, the police (under the applicant’s supervision) registered the death as a suicide caused by self-immolation due to domestic distress and closed the inquiry in 2017.

However, following a petition by the deceased's father, a re-investigation revealed that the deceased's wife was alive (contrary to previous police reports) and that the deceased had allegedly been illegally detained and assaulted by the police prior to his death.

The applicant was charged under Sections 306, 201, 203, 204, 120(b), 193, 218, and 342 of the IPC for abetting suicide, fabricating false records, and destroying evidence.

The applicant moved this third bail application primarily on the ground that his arrest was illegal due to procedural non-compliance.

1. Whether the arrest of the applicant was vitiated by the failure of the arresting authorities to communicate the grounds of arrest as mandated by the Constitution and statutory law.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in view of the alleged violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be arrested without being informed of the grounds for such arrest.

Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 50 of the Cr.P.C.), which requires the communication of full particulars of the offence to the arrestee.

Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another (2025 INSC 162), which held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and entitles the accused to bail.

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), which clarified that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing.

The applicant contended that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of his apprehension, rendering his custody arbitrary and violative of Article 21.

While the State argued that the grounds were communicated orally and that the applicant had criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the case record did not conclusively demonstrate that the grounds were communicated in the manner contemplated by constitutional and statutory safeguards.

The Court emphasized that when a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it constitutes a valid ground for release even if statutory restrictions on bail exist.

Considering that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty," the Court found the applicant's continued custody unjustified.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial and a prohibition against leaving India without permission.