The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of bail applications and one criminal appeal raising a common challenge that the applicants’ arrests were illegal due to non-communication of the “grounds of arrest” in writing, allegedly in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
Justice Vrushali V. Joshi noted that all the applicants relied heavily on recent Supreme Court judgments, particularly Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025) SCC Online SC 2356, to contend that mere “reasons for arrest” are distinct from “grounds of arrest” and that failure to furnish written grounds vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand. It was argued that there can be no waiver of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) and that bail must follow automatically upon such violation.
The Court, however, declined to accept this contention. After an extensive survey of Supreme Court precedents, the Bench held that while communication of grounds of arrest is mandatory, non-supply of written grounds does not ipso facto render an arrest illegal or entitle an accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. Emphasising the “prejudice-oriented test”, the Court observed that in the present cases the applicants were aware of the reasons for their arrest, were legally represented from the outset, and had not shown that their ability to oppose remand or seek bail was materially impaired.
Crucially, the High Court interpreted the Supreme Court’s use of the word “henceforth” in Mihir Rajesh Shah to mean that the strengthened procedural safeguard mandating written grounds of arrest and stipulating a minimum two-hour window prior to remand operates prospectively. The Bench held that this enhanced requirement cannot be retrospectively invoked to invalidate arrests made prior to the said judgment, especially when no specific prejudice is established.
Rejecting the State’s request to refer the issue to a larger bench, the Court concluded that the law as clarified by the Supreme Court does not automatically vitiate past arrests on technical grounds alone. Accordingly, all the bail applications and the criminal appeal were dismissed insofar as they were founded solely on the plea of non-supply of written grounds of arrest.
Appearances:
Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor with Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. .. (Cri. Appln. (B.A.)199/2025)
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar and Mr. D.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor with Ms. M.A. Barabde, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. .. (Cri. Appln. (B.A.)18/2025)
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar and Mr. D.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor with Mr. Ujjawal Phasate, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. .. (Cri. Appln. (B.A.)718/2025)
Mr. R.P. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor with Mr. C.A. Lokahnde, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. .. (Cri. Appln. (B.A.)1130/2025)
Ms. Sunita Kulkarni, Advocate with Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor with Ms. M.A. Barabde, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. .. (Cri. Appln. (B.A.)808/2025)
Mr. Amol Jaltare, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor with Ms. M.A. Barabde, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. .. (Cri. Appln. (B.A.)622/2025)
Mr. Dipesh Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate and Public Prosecutor with Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Varsha A. Warade, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2.. (Cri. Appeal 474/2025)
