Court holds that non-supply of written arrest grounds violates Article 22(1) and BNSS, but refusal of bail was justified due to accused’s active role, gravity of offence, and criminal antecedents
Jabalpur, Sept. 18, 2026: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the bail plea of Raju Sonker in a murder case, ruling that although the written grounds of arrest were not supplied to him, the procedural lapse alone was not enough to secure his release in the absence of any shown prejudice.
Justice Amit Lahoti, hearing the first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), examined the allegations arising out of Crime No. 47/2026, registered under Sections 296(b), 109(1), 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on January 20, 2026, when the applicant and a co-accused confronted the deceased outside his house over an old dispute. The court record states that Sonker allegedly caught the deceased from behind while the co-accused stabbed him in the right armpit with a knife. The injured victim was taken to hospital and later declared dead. The complainant, who intervened, also suffered injuries.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the fatal blow was attributed only to the co-accused and that the applicant had been in custody since January 22, 2026. It was also contended that the arrest was illegal because the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court rulings including Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, and Mihir Rajesh Shah.
The State opposed the plea, stressing that the applicant had an active role in the assault and that his criminal record included 25 cases. The prosecution also argued that the applicant had been orally informed of the reasons for arrest, was represented by counsel from the beginning, and had not raised any objection at earlier stages, including before the magistrate or during investigation.
The High Court noted that the record showed the applicant was aware of the reasons for arrest and had promptly sought bail after arrest. It accepted that the written grounds of arrest were not supplied, which amounted to a violation of Article 22(1) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah. However, the court held that the defect, by itself, would not justify bail unless actual prejudice was shown.
Justice Lahoti observed that the case involved a grave offence under Section 103 of the BNS, an active role attributed to the applicant, corroboration by medical evidence, and serious criminal antecedents. The court also noted that the trial had already reached the stage of recording evidence.
Bottom Line :
Bail in murder case under BNS/BNSS - Non-supply of written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) and law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah, but such defect by itself does not entitle accused to bail unless prejudice is shown - In serious offence involving active participation and criminal antecedents, bail rightly refused.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent approach in State of Karnataka
Raju Sonker v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (MP)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984418
