Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J
KARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 2544/2025 | CRL.M.A. 19868/2025 | CRL.M.A. 16192/2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Arms Act, 1959: S.27, S.54, S.59
Constitution of India: Art.22(1)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.36, S.47, S.48, S.49
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chirag Madan, Ravleen Sabharwal, Rachael Tuli, Ronit Bose, Sai Krishna Kumar, Harsh Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Priyanka Dalal
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the murder case and the arrest of the accused. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. legal debate on the necessity of written grounds of arrest and the prospectivity of the law. (Para 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. evaluation of whether the accused was aware of arrest grounds through remand records and case diaries. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. procedural lapses without demonstrable prejudice do not invalidate arrest in grave offences. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. dismissal of the bail application based on the absence of prejudice. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
MANOJ JAIN, J
1. Applicant seeks regular bail in a case of murder.1FIR No. 0329/2024 dated 16.08.2024 registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar for commission of offences under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 302/34 IPC) and Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959.
2. The solitary contention is to the effect that since the applicant was never provided with grounds of arrest in writing, the arrest is illegal, being in violation Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 36, 47, 48 & 49 of the BNSS, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
3. Before considering the above contention, it will be appropriate to refer about the case of prosecution, albeit, in brief.
4. On 16.08.2024, an information was received about admission of two injured persons, namely, Dharmender @ Monu and Vimal Prakash @ Akki. Police, on reaching the hospital, recorded statement of Akki who revealed that when he along with his friend Neeraj were going in a vehicle, their vehicle collided with a scooty driven by Jugnu. It was a minor collision but Jugnu threatened to kill Neeraj. Akki and Neeraj, along with Monu, went to the house of Jugnu to apologize but he was not met. Later on, Akki, Monu and Neeraj were attacked by accused persons i.e. Jugnu, Amit, Vicky and Karan (applicant herein). Karan was armed with knife and he was the one who attacked Akki and Monu, causing serious stab injuries to them.
5. Monu, eventually, succumbed to such injuries. As per autopsy report, death was due to haemorrhagic shock, consequent upon penetrating stabbing to abdomen.
6. All the four accused, including the applicant, were arrested same day i.e. 16.08.2024.
7. CCTV footage also corroborated their complicity.
8. It also came to fore that accused Jugnu had old enmity with Monu since July, 2021.
9. Mr. Chirag Madan, learned counsel for applicant submits that there is non-adherence and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law and at no point in time, grounds of arrest and reasons of arrest were informed or supplied either to the applicant or to his relatives and, therefore, the arrest being non-est and illegal, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He, primarily, relies upon Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, (2026)1 SCC 500 and Dr. Rajinder Rajan Vs. Union of India and Anr. , 2026 SCC Online SC 802. He also makes reference to Brijesh Kothia Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2026:DHC:4222 and many other precedents wherein, while acknowledging that the non-compliance of aforesaid mandatory requirement vitiates the arrest, the arrestees were released.
10. All such contentions have been refuted by Ms. Priyanka Dalal, learned Addl. P.P. for State.
11. According to her, when the accused was arrested on 16.08.2024, he was duly provided with the ‘grounds of arrest in writing‟ and to corroborate the same, she refers to the relevant portion of the case-diary. She asserts that the grounds of arrest were duly informed, not only to the applicant but also to his other co-accused and the same were provided in writing to them, which they acknowledged by signing. She states that the grounds of arrest were detailed as
(i) Identification b
