Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Doesn't Automatically Entitle Accused To Bail Absent Prejudice: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that non-supply of written grounds of arrest does not automatically entitle an accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 307]The Court observed that while written grounds of arrest are ordinarily required, the real test is whether the accused was made aware of the grounds of arrest, whether the factum of arrest was communicated to the family members, and whether the alleged procedural lapse caused any actual prejudice.A bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur made the observations while rejecting the bail applications of persons accused of facilitating the use of unfair means during a recruitment examination conducted by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS). The petitioners, who were entrusted with conducting the examination, were alleged to have supplied copying material and solved answer sheets to candidates appearing in the examination. The Court observed: "The gravity of the allegation, the specific role attributed to each petitioners, the prima facie corroborative material collected during investigation and the larger public interest involved in preserving the sanctity of public recruitment examinations outweigh the consideration ordinarily favouring grant of bail at this stage." For context, the petitioners sought bail in a case registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The principal contention of the petitioners was that the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest had been violated because they were not furnished the grounds of arrest in writing. Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions, they argued that the alleged violation entitled them to bail. Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the case involved a well-orchestrated conspiracy to manipulate a public recruitment examination. It argued that the petitioners had been informed of the grounds of arrest and that the factum of arrest had been communicated to their family members on the very same day. The State relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan to contend that substantial communication of the grounds of arrest, even if not in writing, would suffice and that a mere procedural irregularity would not render the arrest illegal. Agreeing with the State, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Vihaan Kumar, Mihir Rajesh Shah, Dr. Rajinder Ranjan, and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan. It observed that while the former decisions reaffirmed that communication of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 22(1) of the Constitution, Sri Darshan clarified that every procedural lapse would not, by itself, render an arrest illegal or automatically entitle an accused to bail. The Court observed: "...the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that although furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing ordinarily constitutes the rule, every procedural lapse would not, by itself render the arrest illegal or automatically entitle the accused on bail. The real test is whether the accused had substantially understood the grounds of arrest and whether any demonstrable prejudice had been occasioned by the alleged procedural lapse." It further held that there is a distinction between complete non-communication of the grounds of arrest, which strikes at the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1), and cases where the grounds are substantially communicated but the mode of communication is alleged to be defective. In the latter category, the Court must examine whether the accused has suffered any real or demonstrable prejudice. Applying the principle to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the arrest memos recorded that the petitioners had been informed of the grounds of arrest and apprised of their constitutional rights, while the fact of arrest had also been communicated to their family members on the same day. "Though the petitioners dispute the sufficiency of compliance, no material has been placed before this Court to prima facie establish that they remained unaware of the accusation forming the basis of their arrest or that they were disabled from effectively exercising any constitutional or statutory remedy on account of the alleged procedural lapse." The Court also noted that no grievance regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest had been raised before the Magistrate at the time of the initial remand proceedings. Though this did not amount to a waiver of the constitutional right, it was a relevant circumstance in assessing whether the petitioners had in fact suffered any prejudice. On the merits, the Court found that the charge sheet, CCTV footage, electronic evidence and financial trail prima facie attributed distinct roles to each of the petitioners in the alleged examination malpractice. It observed that the allegations disclosed a concerted...

Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Doesn't Automatically Entitle Accused To Bail Absent Prejudice: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Doesn't Automatically Entitle Accused To Bail Absent Prejudice: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers