* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 15, 2026 % Pronounced on: January 21, 2026 + BAIL APPLN. 3562/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1952/2025 LOKESH ALIAS MANISH .....Applicant Through: Mr. Chirag Madan, Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, Mr. Sai Krishna Kumar, Mr. Ronit Bose and Ms. Rachael Tuli, Advs.

Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates and SI Aarti Yadav, SI Amisha, Main IO and SI Kamal Kant (Arresting Officer), PS.: Kapashera.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present bail application under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No.376/2024 dated 26.04.2024 registered at PS.: Nangloi, Delhi under Sections 392/394/397/451/411/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. As per FIR, on 26.04.2024 at about 01:30 PM, three unknown persons unlawfully entered the complainant’s residence. One of the accused, armed with a knife, threatened the complainant and demanded money and jewellery. Thereafter, the applicant herein searched the house, located the cupboard key and removed Rs.2,50,000/- in cash, consisting of five bundles of Rs.500/- denomination notes, which they kept in a black bag. When the complainant raised an alarm and attempted to resist, she was assaulted and fell down. Subsequent thereto, all the three accused attempted to flee from the spot, however, Moti/ complainant’s brother, Lucky/ complainant’s brother-in-law, and public persons chased them, and one accused, who was carrying the knife and the black bag containing the robbed amount, was apprehended in the street. A call was then made to the Police Control Room (PCR), whereafter, during the course of investigation, the robbed cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and the knife used in the commission of the offence were recovered from the possession of the apprehended accused. Upon inquiry, the said accused disclosed his name as Lokesh @ Manish, S/o Virender, aged 27 years, resident of H.No.B-81, Gali No.6, Seelampur, Shahdara, Delhi. The said accused Lokesh @ Manish was arrested by the police on the same day, i.e., 26.04.2024 and an Arrest Memo was prepared.

3. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to police custody, and all his applications seeking bail were rejected.

4. Hence, the present application seeking grant of regular bail.

5. Mr. Chirag Madan, learned counsel for the applicant primarily submitted that a bare perusal of the Arrest Memo dated 26.04.2024 demonstrates that the applicant was not informed of the grounds of arrest or reasons for arrest, either orally or in writing, at the time of his apprehension.

Such omission, as per the learned counsel, constitutes a clear violation of the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 47 of the BNSS casts a statutory obligation upon the arresting officers to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of arrest and failure to adhere to this mandatory requirement renders the arrest itself illegal and unsustainable in law. Resultantly, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on this ground alone. Be that as it may, the learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 48 of the BNSS, it is mandatory to communicate the grounds of arrest to the relatives, friends, or any person nominated by the arrested person, however, the said statutory mandate has also not been effectuated in the present case. In support of his aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356; Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254; Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC