Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vivek Chaudhary, Manoj Jain, JJ
KARAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-4203/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chetan, Madhu Sharma
For the Respondents: Sanjay Lao, Priyam Agarwal, Aryan Sachdeva

The requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) as held in Mihir Rajesh Shah applies prospectively; prior arrests not illegal if accused was aware of grounds and no prejudice shown.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 22(1), 226, 227 - Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 - Sections 47, 48 - Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 34 - Arrest - Grounds of arrest - Communication of grounds - Mandatory requirement - Prospective application of law - Prejudice test.

(B) The constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest is reinforced by Section 47 BNSS (formerly Section 50 CrPC). The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra clarified that grounds must be communicated in writing. However, in Mihir Rajesh Shah (decided 06.11.2025) the Court held that such requirement would govern arrests henceforth, i.e., prospectively. The arrest in the present case occurred on 07.02.2024, prior to that decision.

(C) Even assuming non-compliance, the Court must examine whether the arrestee suffered demonstrable prejudice. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan adopted a 'prejudice-oriented test' - mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render arrest illegal unless it results in denial of fair opportunity. Here, the petitioner was aware of the grounds of arrest from the remand proceedings, was represented by counsel from the outset, and raised the grievance belatedly after over one year and nine months.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2024 in FIR No.126/2024 under Sections 302/307/34 IPC. He filed a petition under Articles 226/227 read with Section 528 BNSS challenging his arrest as unconstitutional for non-communication of grounds of arrest. He relied on the above Supreme Court decisions and also sought parity with a co-accused who was granted bail on the ground of illegal arrest. The respondent state opposed, contending the petition was misconceived and that the petitioner was fully aware of the grounds from the beginning.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah, mandating uniform written communication of grounds of arrest, operates prospectively and cannot apply to arrests made before its date (06.11.2025). Further, the petitioner had contemporaneous awareness of the substance and basis of his arrest from the remand proceedings; his advocates opposed police custody on merits. There was no demonstrated prejudice, and the grievance was raised after an inordinate delay. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest as per Mihir Rajesh Shah applies retrospectively; (ii) Whether the arrest was illegal due to alleged non-communication of grounds; (iii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to parity with the co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional safeguard of communicating grounds of arrest is mandatory, but the specific directive to furnish them in writing at the time of arrest, as clarified in Mihir Rajesh Shah, applies prospectively. Where the arrestee was otherwise aware of the grounds through contemporaneous proceedings, was represented by counsel, and no prejudice is shown, the arrest is not rendered illegal. Additionally, belated challenge weighs against the petitioner.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. Present petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby petitioner, inter alia, prays that his arrest be declared unconstitutional, being in gross violation of Article 21, 22 (1) & Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner, who was arrested on 07.02.2024 in FIR No. 126/2024 registered at Police Station Welcome under Sections 302/307/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, filed an application seeking grant of regular bail before the learned Trial Court. Such application was dismissed on 03.12.2025 and he also assails such order in the present proceedings.

3. However, the primary argument raised before us is that since the

grounds of arrest were never communicated to the petitioner, till the filing of the chargesheet, in view of the specific pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the arrest is illegal. He relies upon Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 (decided on 03.10.2023), Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254 (decided on 15.05.2024), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799 (decided on 07.02.2025) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 (decided on 06.11.2025).

4. The petitioner also submits that his co-accused Sajjan @ Manish had also moved an application seeking bail before the learned Trial Court and while declaring his arrest as illegal, he was enlarged on bail vide order dated 11.11.2025. He, thus, seeks relief on the ground of parity as well.

5. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the present petition is completely misconceived. He further contends that writ petition would not lie for grant of bail.

6. We also feel that the questions whether the accused has been falsely implicated or, for that matter, whether invocation of Section 34 IPC was justifiable or not, cannot be pressed here.

7. However, since petitioner has raised a ‘question mark’ about legality of his arrest, we have looked into the matter from that limited angle.

8. Article 22(1) of Constitution stipulates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Such constitutional safeguard was further strengthened by procedural law i.e. Section 50 of CrPC 1973

(now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) which reiterates the same by casting duty upon police officer who is arresting any person (without warrant) to forthwith communicate to arrestee, full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Section 48 of BNSS 2023 further provides that arresting police officer shall forthwith give information regarding such arrest and place, where the arrested person is being held, to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district. It also, inter alia, provides requisite vigil over compliance by making it obligatory for the concerned Magistrate to satisfy himself that such requirements have been complied with.

9. There cannot be any qualm with respect the evolution of law on the aspect of furnishing of ‘grounds of arrest’.

10. In Pankaj Bansal (supra), the question was that of the requirement of written grounds of arrest being provided in an arrest under Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and Supreme Court, in order to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, held that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.

11. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Apex court, while dealing with a case under Unlawful Activities (Prev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIVivek Chaudhary, Manoj Jain, JJKARAN SINGH – AppellantVersusSTATE NCT OF DELHI – RespondentW.P.(CRL)-4203/2025

The requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) as held in Mihir Rajesh Shah applies prospectively; prior arrests not illegal if accused was aware of grounds and no prejudice shown.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vivek Chaudhary, Manoj Jain, JJ
KARAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-4203/2025