The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that delay or lapse in furnishing written grounds of arrest does not by itself justify grant of bail unless the accused shows demonstrable prejudice. The Court clarified that where the accused was produced before the Magistrate, legally represented, and aware of the accusations, then such procedural irregularity is not sufficient to secure release on bail.
The Court further held that at the stage of bail, detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible, and in a serious offence, bail can be refused where the case diary discloses a prima facie case, including last seen evidence and recovery pursuant to disclosure memorandums, notwithstanding forensic discrepancies or the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence.
Accordingly, looking at the heinous nature of crime, the missing deceased, as well as the subsequent recovery of a weapon based on disclosure memorandums, the High Court said that the gravity of the offense under Section 103(1) of the BNS cannot be overlooked even with the perceived gaps in the ‘last seen’ theory. The Court therefore refused bail.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta noted that, although the applicants raised points regarding forensic discrepancies and weaknesses in the last seen theory, the gravity of the offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS could not be ignored. On the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing, the Bench held that a procedural lapse in furnishing written grounds of arrest does not automatically entitle an accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. The Bench observed that the applicants had been produced before the Magistrate and were legally represented, indicating informed understanding of the accusations.
The Bench further observed that the prosecution material prima facie placed the applicants with the deceased shortly before he went missing, and that a weapon had been recovered on the basis of disclosure memorandums. It held that at the bail stage, a mini-trial to weigh the forensic query report against the oral evidence was impermissible.
The Bench also reiterated that while considering bail, the Court has to see whether a prima facie case exists, the gravity of allegations, and other settled parameters, and should not go deeply into merits. It also noted that merely because the case is based on circumstantial evidence is not by itself a ground to grant bail where the chain of circumstances is prima facie established.
Briefly, as per the prosecution case, on July 15, 2025, the police, acting on information, reached the forest area near village Govindpura and recorded a Merg intimation under Section 194 of the BNSS based on the report of the deceased’s brother, Sonu Lodhi. The deceased, Sanju Lodhi, had left home on July 12, 2025, for Kamkheda Hanuman Ji Temple, later went missing, and his motorcycle was found near Panchmukhi Balaji Temple. His body was thereafter discovered in the Govindpura forest in a mutilated and decomposed condition.
The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, had been in custody since July 17, 2025, and that investigation was complete with charge-sheet filed. They argued that the arrest memo did not mention the grounds of arrest, the last seen theory was weak and unsupported by CCTV footage, there were no eyewitnesses, the deceased was seen alive with others after the alleged sighting with the applicants, and the forensic material did not clearly connect the seized articles with the injuries. They also pointed out that DNA profiling was not obtained and the body was identified only through clothing.
The State opposed bail by relying on the statement of Sonu Lodhi, who stated that on July 12, 2025, he saw the deceased on a motorcycle with Dheeraj Kushwah and Sanjay Kushwah. The prosecution further relied on the disclosure memorandums of the applicants, pursuant to which a knife was recovered, and on the allegation that the applicants admitted that a dispute over money during drinking in the forest led to the fatal incident.
Appearances:
Advocates Lokendra Sharivastava and Poonam Chandra Soni, for the Applicant
Advocate Dinesh Savita, for the Respondent/ State
