The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the legality of an arrest in a murder case, ruling that the mere absence of written grounds of arrest does not render the custody illegal unless the accused can demonstrate actual prejudice.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case of Saad v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 7600/2025), held that procedural lapses in furnishing written grounds are curable defects if the accused was substantially aware of the reasons for arrest and was duly represented by counsel.
The petition was filed by Saad, an accused in a murder case registered at Police Station Jafrabad, seeking to declare his arrest illegal. He contended that he was not furnished with written grounds of arrest and that the police had manipulated the time of his arrest.
Dismissing the plea, the High Court relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), observing that the petitioner failed to show any demonstrable prejudice caused to him. The Court noted that the petitioner was aware of the grounds of his arrest and had been represented by legal aid counsel during his first production before the Magistrate.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR No. 192/2024, registered under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, on May 21, 2024, the police discovered the body of one Shahbaz following a PCR call. Investigations revealed that the deceased had been facing domestic discord with his wife, Ayesha. The prosecution alleged that Ayesha’s brothers, Salman and Zeeshan, conspired to murder Shahbaz due to unhappiness with the marriage.
The co-accused, Salman and Zeeshan, allegedly disclosed that Zeeshan stabbed the deceased multiple times while Salman restrained him. The petitioner, Saad, was alleged to be part of this conspiracy. The prosecution claimed that Saad “actively facilitated the commission of the offence” by providing the iron knife used in the murder and by recording the act on his mobile phone. The mobile device was recovered from him and sent for forensic analysis.
Saad was arrested on May 22, 2024, and remanded to judicial custody the following day. His bail application was previously dismissed by the Trial Court on October 9, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Contentions: Mr. Chetan, Advocate for the petitioner, challenged the arrest primarily on two grounds:
- Non-furnishing of written grounds: He argued that no written grounds of arrest were provided to the petitioner at the time of arrest or thereafter, termed as a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
- Disputed time of arrest: The counsel alleged that the police took the petitioner into custody at 6:30 AM on May 22, 2024, but clandestinely recorded the arrest time as 6:30 PM. Consequently, it was argued that his production before the Magistrate occurred after about 35 hours, exceeding the legal limit.
Respondent’s Contentions: Mr. Manoj Pant, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, opposed the petition, submitting that:
- The arrest was recorded at 6:30 PM on May 22, 2024, and the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
- The petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest.
- Citing the bail rejection order, the State argued that no demonstrable prejudice had been caused to the petitioner.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the remand order dated May 23, 2024, which noted that the petitioner was represented by a legal aid counsel and that the Magistrate was satisfied that sufficient grounds for arrest existed.
Justice Sharma observed that the grounds for arrest were “precise and clearly ascertainable,” specifically that co-accused persons had disclosed Saad’s involvement in providing the weapon and recording the murder. The Court noted that since the reasons for arrest necessitating remand were argued in the presence of the accused and his counsel, it was difficult to accept that he was uninformed.
On Written Grounds of Arrest: The Court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702. The High Court quoted the Apex Court’s observation that the absence of written grounds constitutes, at best, a curable defect if the accused has access to legal representation and is aware of the accusations.
The judgment cited the following observation from State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan:
“In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail… 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.”
Applying this to the present case, the High Court held:
“Applying the aforesaid legal position to the case at hand, it is clear that the petitioner has been unable to establish any demonstrable prejudice arising from the alleged non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest. The materials on record… indicate that the petitioner was aware of the grounds of his arrest from the outset.”
On Time of Arrest: Regarding the discrepancy in the time of arrest, the Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that he was detained at 6:30 AM. The Court accepted the explanation that the petitioner was called for inquiry in the morning and formally arrested at 6:30 PM after sufficient material was found.
The Court termed the petitioner’s arguments “inherently contradictory” for claiming the memo bore the notation ‘AM’ while simultaneously arguing the time was recorded as ‘PM’ to hide illegal detention. Justice Sharma stated:
“Furthermore, any alleged discrepancy, overwriting, or ambiguity in the arrest memo is a matter that can only be examined on the basis of evidence during trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage.”
Decision
Finding no merit in the contentions regarding the illegality of the arrest or the timing recorded in the arrest memo, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Justice Sharma clarified, “nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”
