The Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur, in its order dated 18.05.2026 passed by Justice Praveer Bhatnagar in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4778/2026, allowed the bail application filed by Jhabra Ram under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 01/2026 registered at Special Police Station, District C.I.D. Security, Jaipur for offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Sections 152 and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge, along with other conditions including monthly appearance before the concerned Police Station till conclusion of trial and not leaving the country without permission.
The Court examined the primary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that mandatory procedural safeguards relating to communication of grounds of arrest were not complied with by the investigating agency prior to his arrest, resulting in violation of constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a substantive constitutional and statutory safeguard, non-compliance of which renders the arrest legally vulnerable. Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court judgments including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the application submitting that the allegations were grave, involving contact with Pakistani handlers through WhatsApp and transmission of sensitive military information. It was contended that the petitioner was made aware of the grounds through the arrest memo, the objection was not raised at the earliest stage, and no prejudice was caused. Reliance was placed on Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan.
The High Court first examined the issue of communication of grounds of arrest, noting that the requirement emanates from Article 22(1) of the Constitution and is statutorily incorporated under Section 47 of the BNSS. It referred extensively to the authoritative pronouncement by the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288), which held that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing in a language understood by the arrestee. While non-supply prior to or immediately after arrest may not vitiate the arrest in exceptional circumstances, the grounds must be furnished within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production before the Magistrate for remand. Failure to adhere to this renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the person to be set at liberty.
Upon perusal of the case diary and remand order-sheet dated 31.01.2026, the Court found that although the petitioner was informed of the factum of arrest, the grounds were not furnished in writing to him, which was contrary to the settled position in Mihir Rajesh Shah. The Magistrate granted police custody remand without ensuring due compliance of the mandatory requirement. The Court observed that the constitutional and statutory safeguards cast a duty not only on the investigating officer but also on the prosecuting agency and the Magistrate to verify compliance. Mere disclosure or narration of allegations without written grounds does not amount to due compliance.
The High Court held that the continued detention of the petitioner could not be sustained in law due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing. Consequently, it was left with no other option except to enlarge the petitioner on bail, despite the grave nature of allegations involving national security. Liberty was granted to the respondent to take recourse to law if a case is made out. The Court imposed conditions including monthly reporting and directed verification of address and sureties.
In parting remarks, the Court directed strict compliance with the dictum in Mihir Rajesh Shah by all investigating agencies and Magistrates dealing with remand. It directed forwarding of the order to the Director General of Police and Director of Prosecution for appropriate action against the concerned Investigating Officer and Public Prosecutor for the lapses observed, and also directed the Registry to place the order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for action regarding the proceedings conducted by the concerned Magistrate. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to forward the order to all Subordinate Courts for due compliance and sensitization.
Case Title: Jhabra Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4778/2026
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur
Date of Order: 18.05.2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 