Supreme Court: Mere Absence Of Written Grounds Doesn’t Render Arrest Illegal Unless It Results In Demonstrable Prejudice Or Denial Of Fair Opportunity
The Supreme Court held that the delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.
The Court held thus in Criminal Appeals preferred by the State, challenging the Common Order of the Karnataka High Court by which the accused persons were enlarged on bail.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.”
The Bench also held that the delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the Appellant/State while Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave, Gaurav Agarwal, and K. Diwakar represented the Respondents/Accused.
Case Background
A case was registered against unknown persons under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on a Complaint after the dead body of an unknown male aged around 30-35 years bearing visible injuries, was discovered by the roadside near the drainage in front of an apartment. During the investigation, accused persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, a total of 17 persons were implicated as accused, and a charge sheet along with two supplementary charge sheets was filed before the jurisdictional Court.
According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained 39 injuries, of which, 13 were bleeding injuries and 17 ribs were fractured. The accused persons had earlier approached the Sessions Judge seeking bail but their Petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, they approached the High Court and it allowed their Petitions. Hence, they were enlarged on bail and being aggrieved, the State approached the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.”
The Court said that in this case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the Respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest and they were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations.
“No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts”, it remarked.
The Court was of the view that the approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.
Courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage
The Court further observed, “It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial.”
The Court also remarked that the reading of the High Court’s Order gives an unmistakable impression that it has pre-judged the outcome of the trial, thereby setting the stage for discharge or acquittal, which is contrary to law.
“… the findings of the High Court, while deciding bail, are to be treated as expressions of opinion only for that purpose and should not, in any manner, prejudice the trial or other proceedings. In the present case, however, the High Court has relied upon irrelevant and premature assessments, and entered into questions best left for the trial, thereby committing a grave jurisdictional error”, it clarified.
Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail
The Court reiterated that mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail and likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses.
“The mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution”, it added.
Post-bail good conduct of the accused, while relevant to the question of continuation of bail, cannot retrospectively validate an otherwise unsustainable order
Furthermore, the Court said that the fact that the accused were in custody for more than 140 days, or exhibited good conduct post-release, does not ipso facto render the order of bail sustainable, if it suffers from non-consideration of material factors at the stage of grant.
“An unsustainable bail order does not become valid with the mere passage of time or the subsequent behaviour of the accused. Judicial scrutiny must focus on whether the discretion to grant bail was exercised judiciously, and in accordance with established principles, at the time of the grant, and not mechanically or on technicalities. Therefore, the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents / accused, deserves to be set aside”, it observed.
Conclusion
The Court emphasised that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital.
“Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrariness. It mandates that all persons – regardless of their popularity, power, or privilege – are equally subject to the law”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the High Court’s Order, and cancelled the bail granted to the accused persons.
Cause Title- State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 979)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, AOR D. L. Chidananda, Advocate SP Prasanna Kumar, Anil C Nishani, Sachin, Mihir Joshi, Manthan Dayanad, Gaurav Chauhan, Vishwesh R Murnal, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Ishan Roy Chaudhary, Madhav B. Kashyap, and Rahul K. Reddy.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave, Gaurav Agarwal, K. Diwakar, AORs Ashutosh Thakur, H. Chandra Sekhar, Anirudh Sanganeria, Sanjana Saddy, Mrinal Kanwar, Advocates Tanisha Kaushal, Himanshu Tyagi, Ashwin Vaish, Sunil Kumar S, Ajay R, Tarun Sharma, V Thomas, Shubi Vijaywargiya, Uttam Panwar, Aaditya Sharma, Anuroop Chakravarti, Amrita Sharma, Chandra Pratap, Parikshit Angadi, Sunil Kumar S, Lakshmikanth G, Aditya D, Hitesh Gowda, Santosh U, Abhishek Sandilya, and Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore.
