No Written Grounds of Arrest not an Automatic Ground for Bail

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Amit Lahoti, in Raju Sonker v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026), held that non-supply of written grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, but such a defect does not, by itself, warrant the release of the accused on bail where the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused and his criminal antecedents weigh against it. 

What was the Background of Raju Sonker v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) Case? 

• According to the prosecution, the applicant, along with other accused persons, confronted the deceased in front of his house and verbally abused him. 
• When the deceased protested, the applicant allegedly caught hold of him while a co-accused stabbed him in the right armpit with a knife, with the intention of killing him. 
• The applicant was booked under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) (punishment for murder) and applied to the High Court for bail. 
• The Senior Advocate for the applicant contended that the knife blow was attributed to the co-accused and not to the applicant. 
• It was further argued that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in writing at the time of arrest, and therefore the arrest itself was illegal. 
• The State opposed the bail, submitting that the applicant actively participated in the offence and had around 25 criminal cases registered against him. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Merits of the Bail Application: 

• The Court noted that the allegations against the applicant and his co-accused were duly corroborated by the medical evidence, and held that the applicant did not deserve bail on merits. 

On Non-Supply of Written Grounds of Arrest: 

• The Court found that the record did reflect that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the applicant in writing, and held that this constituted a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. 
• However, it held that "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." 

On Absence of Prejudice to the Accused: 

• The Court observed that the record showed the applicant was aware of the reasons for his arrest and had been legally represented from the outset. 
• No material was placed on record to show that the non-communication of written grounds caused any prejudice to the applicant. 
• The Court further noted that the applicant had neither raised an objection regarding non-compliance with Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) nor demonstrated any prejudice in the bail application. 

On Balancing Personal Liberty with Societal Interest: 

• While concurring with the Supreme Court's view in Mihir Rajesh Shah that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in a language the arrestee understands renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, the Court emphasised that personal liberty is not absolute. 
• It held that the 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." 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the bail application. 

What is Article 22 of the Constitution of India? 

About: 

• Article 22 of the Constitution of India provides certain safeguards to individuals who are arrested or detained. 
• It forms part of Part III (Fundamental Rights) and operates as a procedural safeguard supplementing the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. 
• Clauses (1) and (2) protect persons arrested under ordinary law. Under Article 22(3), these protections do not apply to an enemy alien or to a person arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention. 
• Clauses (4) to (7) lay down a separate set of safeguards for persons detained under preventive detention laws. 

The Provision: 

Article 22(1) states: 

• "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice." 
• Article 22(2) mandates that every arrested and detained person be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey, and that no such person be detained beyond that period without the Magistrate's authority. 

Safeguards in Preventive Detention: 

• Under Article 22(5), a person detained under a preventive detention law must be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of detention. The detaining authority must also give the person the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order. 
• Under Article 22(4), detention beyond three months requires an Advisory Board to report that there is sufficient cause for such detention. 

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India: 

• Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 is a fundamental right guaranteeing an arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest. 
• It provides that anyone arrested and detained must be informed of the grounds for their arrest, and must not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. 
• This provision ensures transparency and fairness in arrest and detention and prevents arbitrary or unlawful detainment. 

Rights Guaranteed under Article 22(1): 

• The right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, as soon as may be. 
• The right to consult a legal practitioner of one's choice. 
• The right to be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice. 

Mode of Communicating Grounds of Arrest: 

• In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court observed that "the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose." 
• In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), the Supreme Court held that the arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing "as a matter of course and without exception."

What is Section 47 of BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 gives statutory effect to the mandate of Article 22(1). It corresponds to Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 

The Provision: 

• Section 47(1) requires every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant to forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 
• Section 47(2) provides that where a police officer arrests without warrant a person other than one accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the arrested person that he is entitled to be released on bail and may arrange for sureties on his behalf.