The Supreme Court has held that failure to furnish grounds of arrest in writing cannot, by itself, entitle an accused to regular bail where there has been substantial compliance and no prejudice is shown. It cancelled the bail of a man accused of passing sensitive military information to handlers of a Pakistani intelligence agency.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had granted bail solely because the grounds of arrest were not given to the accused in writing.
Background
FIR No. 01/2026 was registered on 30th January, 2026 at the Special Police Station, District CID (Security), Jaipur, under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Sections 152 and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, Jhabra Ram, was in contact with handlers of a Pakistani intelligence agency and sent them photographs, videos and troop movement details from Pokhran and Jaisalmer in exchange for money.
Before the FIR, notices dated 23rd and 26th January, 2026 were served on him under Section 8(1) of the Official Secrets Act. He was arrested at 4:00 PM on 30th January, 2026. The Arrest Memo setting out the accusations was read over to him before two witnesses and signed by him. His brother was informed of the arrest by phone at 4:10 PM.
When he was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, the next day, his counsel opposed remand on merits but raised no objection about the grounds of arrest. The Sessions Court rejected his bail plea on 10th March, 2026.
On 18th May, 2026, the High Court granted him regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It held that oral intimation or a case diary entry did not satisfy Section 47 of the BNSS in light of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. The State appealed.
Arguments
Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, argued that the High Court granted bail on a “hyper-technical” ground without considering the national security allegations. He submitted that Article 22(1) and Section 47 were meaningfully complied with, since the factual basis of the arrest was spelt out in the signed Arrest Memo. Relying on Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, he said substantial compliance is enough unless prejudice is shown, unlike in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha.
Counsel for the respondent argued that not furnishing written grounds was a violation of a mandatory requirement that the gravity of the allegations could not cure. Citing Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, counsel submitted that written grounds must be served at least two hours before the remand hearing.
Court’s Findings
The Court described the communication of grounds of arrest as a crucial constitutional and statutory safeguard and accepted the principles in Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah. However, it found that the record in this case showed substantial and effective compliance.
Listing the parameters for regular bail, including the gravity of the accusation and the impact on national security, the Bench held:
“A hyper-technical objection regarding the form or mode of communicating grounds of arrest cannot be treated as a self-executing, blanket key to unlock regular bail, bypassing the core parameters governing bail jurisprudence.”
The Court noted the prior notices, the detailed and signed Arrest Memo, the phone intimation to the brother, the counsel’s silence on the issue at remand, and the Magistrate’s finding that the accused appeared to have been apprised of the grounds. Applying the prejudice-oriented test from Sri Darshan, it observed:
“The substantive mandate of Article 22(1) thus stands meaningfully fulfilled, with no demonstrable prejudice having been suffered.”
Relying on Kasireddy Upender Reddy and Sri Darshan, the Bench added that the constitutional framework “does not insist upon written communication as an indispensable formality irrespective of the attendant circumstances.”
It held that the High Court erred in treating an alleged procedural irregularity as an automatic ground for bail while ignoring the gravity of the offences and the material collected during investigation. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
Outcome
The appeal was allowed and the High Court’s order dated 18th May, 2026 was set aside. The respondent’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the trial court or the investigating agency within two weeks, failing which the State shall take him into custody in accordance with law.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Jhabra Ram
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13374 of 2026
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date: 28.10.2026
