Failure to furnish written grounds of arrest under Section 47 BNSS mandates release on bail.

The petitioner filed an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest in connection with Delanga PS Case No. 379 of 2025 for offences including kidnapping and trafficking minor victims under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 296, 115(2), 142(2), 143, 146, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The petitioner argued for bail based on the non-compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of grounds of arrest

The State filed an affidavit asserting compliance, presenting a notice under Section 47 stating the petitioner was arrested on 25.11.2025 at 17:30 hours

However, the formal arrest memo and charge sheet recorded the arrest date as 28.11.2025 at 9:00 AM

1. Whether the discrepancy between the police notice and the arrest memo regarding the date and time of arrest, coupled with the alleged failure to provide written grounds of arrest, constitutes a violation of Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution

2. Whether the non-compliance with mandatory arrest procedures and fundamental rights entitles the accused to be released on bail

The court primarily applied Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandate that every person arrested must be informed of the grounds for such arrest

It relied on the precedent set in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026), which establishes that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee, or in exceptional circumstances, conveyed orally and followed by a written copy no later than two hours prior to production before a Magistrate

the court applied the principle from Directorate of Enforcement v. Subash Sharma (2025), which holds that if fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 are violated during or after arrest, the arrest is vitiated, and the court has a duty to release the accused on bail

The court found a significant contradiction in the police records: the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS claimed an arrest on 25.11.2025, while the formal arrest memo cited 28.11.2025

The court observed that it is impossible for a person to be arrested twice for the same case and characterized the arrest memo as an attempt by the police to "cover up" the failure to communicate grounds of arrest

It noted that neither the arrest memo nor the Section 47 notice contained the specific "grounds of arrest" required by the Mihir Rajesh Shah mandate, but merely listed the penal sections

By comparing the documents, the court determined that the mandatory procedural safeguards for personal liberty were bypassed.

Consequently, following the doctrine in Subash Sharma, the court reasoned that once a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22 is established, the legality of the detention is compromised, leaving the court no option but to grant bail

The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the trial court. The court further directed the communication of this order to the concerned jail via e-mail