Procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest do not warrant bail absent demonstrable prejudice to the accused.

The applicants sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS regarding Crime No. 201/2025 involving the murder of Sanju Lodhi, whose decomposed body was found in the Govindpura forest on July 15, 2025

The deceased was last seen with the applicants on July 12, 2025, riding a motorcycle

Following the applicants' arrest, a weapon (knife) was recovered based on their disclosure statements

The applicants challenged their detention on grounds that "grounds of arrest" were not provided in writing, the "last seen" theory was weak due to lack of CCTV footage, and forensic reports were inconclusive regarding the cause of death

1. Whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, as mandated by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, necessitates the mandatory release of the accused on bail in a murder case

2. Whether discrepancies in forensic evidence and the "last seen" theory at the prima facie stage are sufficient to grant bail in a grave offense under Section 103(1) of the BNS

The court primarily applied Section 103(1) (Murder), 238(A), and 61(2)(a) of the BNS

It analyzed Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 47 of BNSS) regarding procedural mandates for arrest

It relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, which held that delay/failure to furnish written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice is shown

It further noted Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat, stating that the reliance on circumstantial evidence is not a valid ground for bail if a prima facie chain of events is established

The court reasoned that although the applicants cited procedural lapses regarding the arrest memo, they were produced before a Magistrate and legally represented, which indicated an informed understanding of the charges, thus negating "demonstrable prejudice"

Regarding the merits, the court noted that the testimony of the deceased's brother, Sonu Lodhi, placed the applicants with the deceased shortly before his disappearance, and a weapon was recovered based on their statements

The court held that a "mini-trial" to weigh forensic discrepancies against oral evidence is impermissible at the bail stage

The court prioritized the heinous nature of the crime and the existence of a prima facie case over the technical and evidentiary gaps highlighted by the defense

The High Court dismissed the first bail application of Dheeraj Kushwaha and the second bail application of Sanjay Kushwaha