Failure to furnish written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) but does not automatically warrant bail.

The applicant sought his first bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Crime No. 47/2026, registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 109(1), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

He had been in custody since 22 January 2026.

The prosecution alleged that on 20 January 2026 the applicant and a co-accused confronted the deceased over a prior dispute; the applicant allegedly restrained the deceased from behind while the co-accused stabbed him in the right armpit.

The deceased subsequently died after being taken to hospital, and the complainant also sustained injuries when he intervened.

The applicant argued that the fatal blow was specifically attributed to the co-accused, that the eyewitnesses had been examined, and that the written grounds of arrest had not been furnished in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.

The State opposed bail, relying on the applicant’s alleged active participation, criminal antecedents involving 25 cases, and the absence of demonstrated prejudice arising from the alleged non-supply of written grounds of arrest.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on merits considering his alleged active participation in an incident resulting in the death of the deceased, the gravity of the offence, and his criminal antecedents.

Whether failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, and whether such violation, by itself, entitled the applicant to release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS governing bail powers of the High Court, together with Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which require that an arrested person be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest.

Relying on Prabir Purkayastha v. NCT of Delhi, (2024) 8 SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500, the Court recognised that written communication of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional safeguard and that, where immediate written communication is not possible, the grounds must at least be communicated orally and in writing within a reasonable time, and ordinarily two hours before production for remand.

It also considered State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, and State of Meghalaya v. Sonal Raghuvanshi, SLP (Cr.) No. 11944/2026, for the principle that non-furnishing of written grounds does not automatically result in bail where substantial communication occurred and no actual prejudice is demonstrated.

The Court further applied the bail principle that gravity of the offence, the accused’s prima facie role, medical corroboration, criminal antecedents, and the potential impact on collective societal interests are relevant considerations.

On the merits, the Court found that the applicant had an active role in the occurrence: although the fatal knife blow was attributed to the co-accused, the applicant allegedly restrained the deceased during the assault.

This allegation was supported by the medical evidence and concerned an offence punishable under Section 103 of the BNS.

Regarding arrest, the Court held that the record showed the applicant was aware of the reasons for his arrest, was legally represented from the outset, and had applied for bail shortly after arrest.

Therefore, no actual prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend was established.

Nevertheless, the Court expressly found that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to the applicant in writing, constituting a violation of Article 22(1) as interpreted in Mihir Rajesh Shah.

Applying the prejudice-oriented approach in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, however, it concluded that this procedural violation did not, in the particular circumstances, require release on bail.

The Court additionally relied on the seriousness of the charge, the applicant’s active participation, his criminal antecedents, his failure to raise the objection earlier, and the fact that the trial had already entered the evidence stage.

It further held that the non-supply of written grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution but, absent demonstrated prejudice and in view of the surrounding circumstances, did not independently warrant release on bail.

The application under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly dismissed.