$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7921/2025 & CRL.M.A. 33159/2025 DEEPAK BERI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State SI Vikas Bhardwaj & SI Amit Beniwal, PS- M.S.

Park CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 11.11.2025

1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order of arrest stating that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him in writing thereby rendering the arrest of the petitioner illegal and in gross violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

2. Briefly stated, FIR No. 197/2024 was registered at Police Station Mansarover Park for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged that the complainant was sold a property bearing No. 1/3278, Khasra No. 573, Gali No. 1, Ram Nagar Extension, Shahdara by the petitioner and one Umesh Rani for a total consideration of ₹72,71,000/- on the false representation that the property was free from all encumbrances including mortgage, lien etcetera. It is alleged that thereafter, the relevant title documents as well as the physical possession were handed over to the complainant on 29.12.2023. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant learnt that the said property was mortgaged with the Bank and loan was never repaid by the petitioner and co-accused Umesh Rani.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of arrest is illegal as the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner in writing.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner and his wife were informed about the grounds of arrest and that the petitioner was also duly represented before the learned Trial Court as well as this Court at the time of the hearing of his bail applications.

6. From a perusal of the remand order dated 07.05.2024, it is apparent that the remand was sought on account of the petitioner being involved in serious offences and for the apprehension of co-accused Umesh Rani who was absconding and for recovery of stamp material used to create forged documents. On that occasion, considering that the case was at the initial stage as well as the nature of offences, the grounds of arrest was found justifiable. The learned Magistrate also noted that the wife of the petitioner had been informed about the grounds of arrest and that the petitioner had already been defended by the legal practitioner of his choice.

7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner, at this stage, has claimed that a detailed copy of the grounds of arrest was not supplied to him in writing which renders the arrest of the petitioner illegal. In that relation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2024 INSC 414 and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. : 2025 INSC 162 to contend that the non-supply of the grounds of arrest in writing would render the arrest of the petitioner illegal and a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

8. In that regard, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2024, however, the said judgments were passed post the arrest of the petitioner was effected and only apply prospectively. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 while placing reliance on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) in relation to the ground of arrest being informed to the arrested person in writing and its prospective application noted as under:

“57. After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode of or time frame for communication of the grounds of arrest to the person