Article 22(1)—Failure to Furnish Written Grounds Does Not Invalidate Pre-Mihir Rajesh Shah Arrest Where Grounds Were Orally Communicated and No Prejudice Is Shown: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sudhir Kumar v. State of Punjab; Yatin Godara v. State of Punjab; Vikram Kumar @ Pauaa v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 17 August 2026
Citation: CRM-M-19987-2026; CRM-M-20129-2026; CRM-M-25294-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest, as authoritatively crystallised by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, applies prospectively and cannot invalidate arrests effected before that judgment where the grounds had been orally communicated and duly recorded in the arrest memos. The Court distinguished complete non-communication of the grounds of arrest, which may render an arrest illegal under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, from a case where the grounds were communicated but were not supplied in the subsequently prescribed written form; in the latter category, the arrestee must demonstrate prejudice resulting from the procedural lapse.
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court decided three connected petitions seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitions arose from FIR No. 51 dated 2 May 2025, registered at Police Station Bahawala, District Fazilka, under Sections 103(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2) and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 212 IPC and Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The FIR was registered on the statement of Radha Krishan, father of the deceased Bharat Rattan. According to the complainant, on 1 May 2025, Bharat Rattan travelled towards Village Sitto Gunno on his motorcycle. At approximately 3:20 p.m., the complainant received a call from Anmolbir Singh informing him that Bharat Rattan had been intercepted by Yatin Godara, Sudhir Kumar, Vikram Kumar @ Pauaa and five or six unidentified persons who had arrived in a Tata Harrier and on a motorcycle. The assailants allegedly attacked him with sharp-edged weapons, sticks, rods and dangs, causing injuries to his head, arms and legs. Bharat Rattan was initially taken to the Civil Hospital, Abohar, and was later shifted to a hospital at Sri Ganganagar, where he succumbed to his injuries.
Sudhir Kumar contended that the grounds of his arrest had not been properly communicated. He also argued that the original version did not attribute any overt act to him and that the allegation of giving kick blows was introduced for the first time in a supplementary statement recorded nine days later. No weapon or specific injury was attributed to him, and he claimed that he had been implicated merely because he was employed as a driver by co-accused Yatin Godara.
Yatin Godara similarly argued that the FIR contained only general allegations and that the specific allegation of inflicting blows with a kappa was introduced subsequently. He relied upon previous animosity and cross-cases between the parties, the absence of any recovery from him, completion of the investigation and the grant of bail or protection to other co-accused. He also contended that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him in writing.
Vikram Kumar @ Pauaa submitted that no specific role had been assigned to him in the original FIR. His alleged role of conducting reconnaissance was introduced in the supplementary statement, and he was not accused of participating in the physical assault. Apart from a motorcycle, no weapon, bloodstained article or other incriminating material had been recovered from him. He further relied upon the absence of scientific or electronic evidence establishing his presence at the scene and sought parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.
The State and the complainant opposed the petitions by emphasising the gravity of the fatal assault and the specific roles attributed to the petitioners during the investigation. Regarding the grounds of arrest, the State argued that the arrest memos established that the petitioners had been informed about the nature of the allegations, the offences for which they were being arrested and their right to seek legal remedies. Therefore, the case was not one of complete non-communication but, at most, of failure to supply the grounds in writing.
The High Court examined Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 BNSS in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning communication of grounds of arrest. It recognised that communication of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard and not a procedural formality. Under the law presently governing arrests, the grounds must ordinarily be supplied in writing, in a language understood by the arrestee, and sufficiently before the arrestee is produced before the Magistrate for remand.
The Court, however, noted that all three petitioners had been arrested in May 2025, whereas the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra was pronounced on 6 November 2025. That decision acknowledged that there had previously been no uniform or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest in all offences and expressly directed that the procedure clarified therein would govern arrests “henceforth.”
The High Court consequently held that the requirement of written communication could not be retrospectively imposed upon arrests made before the procedure was crystallised. Since the arrest memos recorded that the petitioners had been orally informed of the nature of the allegations and offences, the communication satisfied the legal position prevailing on the dates of their arrests.
The Court further distinguished between complete failure to communicate the grounds of arrest and inadequate communication or failure to furnish them in the prescribed written form. While complete non-service may vitiate the arrest, a deficiency in the manner or adequacy of communication requires the accused to establish resultant prejudice. The petitioners had not shown that the alleged lapse impaired their right to consult counsel, oppose remand, seek bail or otherwise defend themselves.
The Court also considered it significant that the petitioners had initially sought regular bail before the trial court on merits without raising any objection regarding the non-furnishing of written grounds. The objection was raised for the first time before the High Court after they had remained in custody for a considerable period. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the belated procedural objection could not independently entitle them to bail.
On the merits of the individual bail applications, the Court found that Yatin Godara was specifically accused of inflicting kappa blows on the deceased’s head and left leg, while Sudhir Kumar was alleged to have delivered kick blows during the assault. Yatin Godara had also tested positive in a dope test. The Court held that the co-accused already granted bail were not similarly situated because their alleged roles were primarily confined to reconnaissance or providing shelter rather than physical participation in the attack.
In Vikram Kumar’s case, the allegation was principally that he had conducted reconnaissance before the occurrence. Although a witness allegedly stated during the investigation that Vikram was seen arriving after the incident, his presence was not reflected in the available CCTV footage. The investigation had concluded, he had remained in custody for approximately fifteen months, and a co-accused assigned a similar role had already been enlarged on bail.
Decision: The High Court dismissed CRM-M-19987-2026 filed by Sudhir Kumar and CRM-M-20129-2026 filed by Yatin Godara, holding that the oral communication of their grounds of arrest constituted compliance with the law prevailing when they were arrested and that they had failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the non-supply of written grounds; their bail claims were also rejected on merits because of the specific roles attributed to them in the fatal assault, the gravity of the offence and the early stage of trial. CRM-M-25294-2026 filed by Vikram Kumar @ Pauaa was allowed, and he was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions relating to non-interference with witnesses or evidence, restriction on foreign travel without permission, verification of his residential addresses, disclosure of PAN, Aadhaar, operative bank accounts and immovable properties, intimation of changes in address or mobile number, regular appearance before the trial court and abstention from similar offences.