Arrest Grounds Not Given In Writing Violates Article 22(1), But Doesn't Automatically Entitle Accused To Bail: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that not communicating grounds of arrest in writing to an accused amounts to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, but such non-compliance, by itself, does not automatically entitle the accused to bail. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 386]The bench of Justice Amit Lahoti observed:"However, the material borne out from the record does reflect that the...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that not communicating grounds of arrest in writing to an accused amounts to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, but such non-compliance, by itself, does not automatically entitle the accused to bail. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 386]
The bench of Justice Amit Lahoti observed:
"However, the material borne out from the record does reflect that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the applicant in writing, which constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). Nevertheless, such defect, by itself, would not warrant the release of the applicant on bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case in particular".
Per the prosecution, the applicant, along with other accused, confronted the deceased in front of his house and verbally abused him. When the deceased protested, the applicant caught the deceased and the co-accused too a knife and stabbed the deceased in the right armpit with the intention to kill the deceased.
Senior Advocate for the applicant contended that the allegation of inflicting a knife blow is attributed to the co-accused. Further, it was argued that at the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in writing. Thus, the arrest was itself illegal.
The Government Advocate for the State argued that the applicant had active participation in the commission of the offence and that he has about 25 cases recorded against him.
The bench noted that the allegations attributed to the applicant and his co-accused were duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, the court opined that the applicant does not deserve bail on merits.
Referring to the argument that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing, the bench noted that the record reflects that the applicant was aware of the reasons for his arrest and was legally represented from the outset.
The court further noted that no evidence was placed on record to show that non-communication of grounds of arrest caused any prejudice to the applicant. Further, the bench emphasized that
"This Court cannot overlook the determinative factors, namely, the gravity of the charge under Section 103 of the BNS, the active role attributed to the applicant in the commission of the offence, and his criminal antecedents".
While the court concurred with the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah, wherein it was held that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language he/she understands, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. The bench highlighted that
"though personal liberty is the cherished constitutional value but it is not absolute in the sense that liberty must yield where it poses a threat to the collective interest of the society and when the facts of the case is seen in the context of the allegations levelled against the applicant as well as his criminal antecedents".
The bench also noted that the applicant failed to raise the objection regarding non-compliance with Section 47 BNSS nor demonstrate any grounds in the bail application that non-compliance caused him any prejudice. Thus, the court dismissed the application for bail.
NOTE: In the case of Jaskaran Jeet Deol v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court emphasized that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language he/she understands, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. The Apex Court also elaborated that to re-arrest a person who was released for the breach of Article 22(1), the police must file an application before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and obtain the Magistrate's sanction.
Case Title: Raju Sonker v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-32331-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 386
For Applicant: Senior Advocate Mrigendra Singh with Advocates Akbar Hussain Usmani and Guncha Rasool
For State: Government Advocate Naveen Thakur
For Complainant: Advocates Hiimanshu Tiwari and Ankit Dubey