The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of a petitioner’s arrest in a murder case, holding that the plea based on non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest was without merit.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain observed:

“The law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), insofar as it mandates uniform written communication of grounds of arrest, operates prospectively.”

Facts:

The petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He sought a declaration that his arrest was unconstitutional on the ground that it violated Articles 21, 22(1), and 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2024 for offences under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the IPC. His application for regular bail was dismissed by the Trial Court on 03.12.2025, and that order was also challenged in the writ petition.

The petitioner’s main argument was that the grounds of his arrest were never communicated to him until the charge sheet was filed, making the arrest illegal. He relied on Supreme Court judgments in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) ,Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra .

He also sought parity with a co-accused whose arrest had been declared illegal and who had been granted bail.

The Court examined the issue only from the limited angle of the legality of arrest. It noted that Article 22(1) of the Constitution, along with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, mandates communication of grounds of arrest and intimation to relatives.

Referring to the evolution of law through the above Supreme Court decisions, the Court observed that while informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard, the requirement of furnishing written grounds has developed gradually, with Mihir Rajesh Shah consolidating the jurisprudence by emphasizing written communication, subject to practical exceptions.

The bench observed, “The date of decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is 06.11.2025 and admittedly, the petitioner herein had been arrested much earlier i.e. on 07.02.2024 and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise any grievance”.

The State argued that the petitioner was always aware of the reasons for his arrest, as the prosecution case was clearly outlined in the remand papers. He was represented by a lawyer from the beginning, who even opposed his police custody. The state pointed out that the challenge was filed after an undue delay of over one year and nine months, without the petitioner showing any prejudice. It also argued that he could not claim parity with the co-accused, since the co-accused’s bail was still under cancellation proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

Relying on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, the Supreme Court held, “while compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a ‘prejudice-oriented test’ when examining alleged procedural lapses and, further held that mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice by denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend themselves.”

i. The law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), insofar as it mandates uniform written communication of grounds of arrest, operates prospectively;

ii.The petitioner’s clear and evident contemporaneous awareness of the substance and basis of his arrest from the inception;

iii. Absence of any demonstrated prejudice, coupled with the inordinate delay in raising the grievance.

Consequently, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed”.

Case title: Karan Singh v. State. W.P.(CRL) 4203/2025