Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Praveer Bhatnagar, J
Jhabra Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4778/2026
Key Points: - The court analyzes the constitutional and statutory requirement to communicate grounds of arrest under Article 21 and 22 and BNSS 2023, including timeframes and exceptions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Written grounds of arrest are mandatory and must be communicated in a language understood by the arrestee; if not possible at/ar shortly after arrest, they must be provided within a reasonable time and at least two hours before remand before the magistrate, with a note if delayed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Non-compliance can render the arrest and remand illegal and entitle the arrestee to bail, and future remand/orders must address the lapse, with expeditious consideration by the magistrate (!) (!) (!) . - In exceptional circumstances where grounds can be supplied later (e.g., documentary evidence or urgent cases), oral grounds at arrest followed by written grounds within two hours prior to remand are permissible; otherwise, non-compliance constitutes grounds for release (!) (!) (!) . - The case holder set bail in the present matter due to non-compliance with writing grounds of arrest, directing personal bond and sureties, and imposing monitoring conditions; emphasizes strict adherence to Mihir Rajesh Shah and Prabir Purkayastha standards, especially in national security context (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application based on procedural non-compliance during arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. constitutional and statutory requirement to communicate grounds of arrest. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. failure to provide written grounds of arrest as per legal dictum. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. overriding necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards for liberty. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. orders and directions for bail release and system compliance. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 1. Date of conclusion of arguments | 12/05/2026 |
| 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved | 12/05/2026 |
| 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced | Full Judgment |
| 4. Date of pronouncement | 18/05/2026 |
Reportable
1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) in connection with FIR No. 01/2026, registered at Special Police Station, District C.I.D. Security, Jaipur Rajasthan, for offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Sections 152 and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner at the outset has contended that in the instant case mandatory procedural safeguards relating to arrest and communication of grounds of arrest were not duly complied with by the Investigating agency. It is submitted that prior to effecting the arrest of the petitioner, the grounds of arrest were neither furnished nor effectively communicated to him in the manner contemplated under law, thereby resulting in violation of constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is argued that the right of an accused to be informed of the grounds of arrest is not an empty formality, but a substantive constitutional protection intended to ensure fairness and transparency; non-compliance of such mandatory safeguards renders the arrest legally vulnerable and vitiates the continued detention of the petitioner. In order to buttress his argument, reliance was placed on judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of:
A. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576;
B. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254;
C. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 799 and;
D. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra And Anr., 2025 INSC 1288.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature and pertain to offences affecting the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation. It is contended that during investigation, sufficient material has surfaced indicating that the petitioner was in contact with Pakistani handlers through WhatsApp and other electronic modes and was involved in transmission of sensitive information relating to military establishments.
5. Furthermore, with regards to non-supply of grounds of arrest and alleged violation of procedural safeguards is concerned, it is submitted that the concerned court had already recorded the fact that accused petitioner has been made aware about the grounds of arrest through arrest memo, moreover such objection was never raised by the petitioner at the earliest available stage either at the time of remand proceedings or before the Court concerned immediately after arrest.
6. It is further contended that no material has been placed on record to indicate that any prejudice whatsoever was caused to the petitioner on account of the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest and therefore, the plea sought to be raised at this stage is wholly belated and untenable. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in following cases:-
A. Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 768;
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
