The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing is not a procedural formality but a non-negotiable safeguard under Article 22(1). In a decisive ruling, the Court granted bail to an accused in a serious robbery case solely on the ground that police failed to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, rendering the arrest illegal and the subsequent custody unsustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Lokesh alias Manish, was arrested on 26 April 2024 in connection with FIR No. 376/2024 registered at PS Nangloi, Delhi, under Sections 392, 394, 397, 451, 411, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involve armed robbery at a residence, where the accused allegedly threatened the complainant with a knife, stole Rs. 2,50,000 in cash, and fled the scene before being apprehended by bystanders. The stolen cash and weapon were recovered from his possession immediately after arrest.
Procedural History
- 26 April 2024: Applicant arrested; Arrest Memo prepared but no written grounds of arrest provided.
- 27 April 2024: Police applied for custody remand; no grounds of arrest disclosed in the application.
- April - June 2024: Multiple bail applications filed and rejected by lower courts.
- January 2026: Bail application filed before Delhi High Court under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on two grounds: (1) violation of Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS due to non-disclosure of written grounds of arrest; and (2) parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused at the time of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, renders the arrest illegal and sufficient grounds for granting bail, irrespective of the gravity of the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the applicant relied on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana to argue that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, distinct from general ‘reasons for arrest’. He emphasized that the omission violates a fundamental right under Article 22(1), which is non-derogable and renders the entire arrest process void. He further contended that the failure to inform relatives under Section 48 of BNSS compounded the illegality. The grant of bail to a co-accused was cited to invoke the principle of parity.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that while communication of grounds is mandatory, the absence of a written document does not automatically invalidate the arrest unless prejudice is demonstrated. It argued that the arrest memo contained sufficient details for remand purposes and that the recovery of incriminating evidence and the seriousness of the offence warranted denial of bail. It also claimed that Mihir Rajesh Shah applied prospectively and did not bind the present case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous doctrinal review of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. It held that the distinction between ‘grounds of arrest’ and ‘reasons for arrest’ is not semantic but substantive. While ‘reasons’ are general justifications for custody (e.g., preventing tampering with evidence), the ‘grounds’ are the specific facts and evidence justifying the arrest of the individual.
"The ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature."
The Court emphasized that without written grounds, the accused cannot effectively consult counsel, oppose police custody, or seek bail - thereby nullifying the very purpose of Article 22(1). It rejected the State’s argument that filing a charge sheet cures the initial illegality, citing Prabir Purkayastha: "Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed... would not validate the illegality and unconstitutionality committed at the time of arrest."
The Court further noted that the State failed to discharge its burden under Vihaan Kumar, which places the onus on the arresting agency to prove compliance when the accused raises the issue. No evidence was adduced to show that written grounds were ever provided. Consequently, the arrest and remand were declared unconstitutional and void ab initio.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Delhi High Court held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing violates Article 22(1) and renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to bail irrespective of the nature of the offence. The applicant was granted regular bail subject to personal bond and standard conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arrest Cannot Be Validated by Subsequent Actions
- Practitioners must challenge arrests where written grounds are absent, even if a charge sheet is filed.
- Courts must treat non-compliance with Article 22(1) as a jurisdictional defect, not a curable procedural lapse.
- Bail applications should be framed around this violation as a standalone ground, independent of merits.
Written Grounds Are Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Arresting officers must prepare and deliver a written document listing specific facts forming the basis of arrest - not boilerplate reasons.
- Police records (Arrest Memo, remand applications) must explicitly state grounds; failure will be fatal to prosecution.
- Defence counsel should routinely demand and document non-compliance at the earliest opportunity.
Parity Is Secondary, But Grounds of Arrest Are Primary
- While parity with co-accused may assist, it is not essential. The constitutional violation alone suffices for bail.
- Courts must prioritize procedural integrity over punitive considerations in bail decisions involving Article 22(1) breaches.
- This ruling elevates procedural compliance to a constitutional threshold in all arrest-related matters under BNSS and IPC.
