Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 1 of 8
Bail SC No. 341/25
FIR No. 989/24
PS Begumpur
STATE Vs. Deepak
02.08.2025
Present: Sh. Girish Giri, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
None for applicant / accused.
1. This is the 2nd application under Section 483 of the BNSS for
grant of regular bail is filed on behalf of applicant/ accused Deepak.
2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that no similar
application is pending before any other court.
3. Reply to the application has already been filed. Copy has
already been supplied.
4. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused argued on the lines of his bail
application and during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for
applicant/ accused submitted that he is praying for bail as grounds of
arrest were not provided to the present applicant at the time of his arrest.
It is further submitted that applicant/ accused has been deprived with
the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest as envisaged under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution as well as under Section 50 of Cr.P.C
(now S. 47 of BNSS, 2023). Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on
dicta made by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Pranav Kuckreja Vs.
State Crl. M. (Bail) 1825/2024 and Marfing Tamang @ Maaina Tamang
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl. MC 4391/24 & Crl. MA 19329/24,
wherein it has been that serving ground of arrest simultaneously when
-- 1 of 8 --
Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 2 of 8
the accused is being arrested is mandatory requirement and
infringement thereof would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.
5. Ld. Counsel heavily stressed on the aspect of illegality in arrest
of the applicant/accused as investigating agency did not follow the
procedure and guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
judgment particularly Prabir Purkaystha vs (State of NCT of Delhi),
[2024] 6 SCR 666 and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Harayana 2025 SCC
Online SC 269. Ld. counsel for applicant/accused submits that since
ground of arrest has not been informed to the applicant/accused at the
time of his arrest, the arrest proceedings are vitiated and
applicant/accused is entitled for bail.
6. Ld. Counsel prayed for grant of bail as the investigation is
complete, charge-sheet has been filed and applicant / accused has
already suffered pre-trial incarceration since 30.12.2024. Ld. Counsel
has submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant
/ accused further in custody and the applicant / accused is ready to abide
by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. It is stated that
application be allowed as there are change of circumstances.
7. Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant has also relied upon the
following judgments in support of his contentions :
i. Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Crl. A.
No. 2808/2025 SLP (CRL) No. 5691/2025.
ii. Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online SC 1200.
iii. Nitin Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 03.02.2025
-- 2 of 8 --
Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 3 of 8
iv. Yashpal Vs. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) Bail Application No.
1340/2019, decided on 29.05.2019
v. Prabir Purkaystha Vs. (State NCT of Delhi), [2024] 6 S.C.R. 666 :
2024 INSC 414.
8. Bail application is strongly opposed by Ld. Addl. PP for State
as well as IO stating that the allegations against the applicant / accused
are serious in nature. It is submitted that there are serious allegations
against the applicant/accused of repeated demand of dowry. It is
submitted by the IO through a detailed reply that statement of the
complaint was recorded in front of the Executive Magistrate wherein he
stated that his younger sister Divya got married to applicant on
22.11.2018 as per her own will. Complainant further submits through
his complaint that about 4/5 years ago, when he bought a house, the
applicant/ accused and his mother had asked for that house to live in
many a times. He further enumerated in his complaint that when he had
booked a plot (25 sq. yards) for himself, the applicant/ accused asked
him to either get that plot registered in his name or help him with some
money and applicant/ accused in collusion with his mother used to force
deceased to ask the complainant to fulfill these demands. On
29.12.2024, Divya made a telephonic call to the complainant and asked
him to bring her with him, however, later at about 8:15 PM, Vicky
(brother of the applicant/ accused) informed the complainant
telephonically that his sister hanged herself on which, he rushed to their
house and found all the family members present near her sister but none
had taken her to hospital. PM report clearly reflects that death was due
to asphyxia consequent to ante-mortem hanging. The statements of
-- 3 of 8 --
Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 4 of 8
mother and father of deceased categorically reflects that applicant/
accused and his family members used to demand dowry. It was further
revealed that deceased went to her house on the day of incident to fetch
some money and upon returning her matrimonial house, she was again
subjected to cruelty. The CDR of the deceased and the applicant/
accused was analyzed, wherein it is found that the deceased contacted
her family multiple times on the day of incident and also visited her
house. The facts and circumstances clearly reflect that the deceased
was subjected to cruelty for the sake of dowry soon before her death.
The FSL result of the exhibits is still awaited. While opposing the
present application, Ld. Addl. PP for State further submits that
applicant/ accused and the complainants are relatives and well known to
each other, hence, he may induce threats and pressure upon them and
further prayed that the application may be dismissed.
9. IO has placed a copy of Circular No. 19/25 dated 17.03.2025
issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police
Headquarters and copy of Part IV of Delhi Gazette Notification
depicting the information to be entered in the arrested persons register
and stated that now he is communicating ground of arrest in terms of
aforesaid circular. However, IO has fairly conceded the fact that
applicant/accused was not informed of his grounds of arrest as there
was no directions from Commissioner of Police at the time of arrest of
accused.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant submitted that effectively the
accused was told about the reasons and grounds of arrest.
-- 4 of 8 --
Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 5 of 8
11. Arguments heard. Record perused.
12. The grounds on which bail has been prayed for are mentioned
in the bail application but the most important ground on which bail has
been prayed for is that the accused was never informed about his
grounds of arrest in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India 2023, 12
SCR 714, 2023 INSC 866 and later judgements of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It is submitted that it is now
settled law that accused has to be informed about his grounds of arrest
as per the constitutional mandate mentioned in Article 22 of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that it is obvious from the
arrest memo of the accused that the accused was arrested on 30.12.2024
and grounds of arrest are not mentioned in the arrest memo and no
document on the file/charge-sheet suggests that the accused was
informed about his grounds of arrest. It is further submitted that reasons
of arrest have been mentioned in the arrest memo but it is silent about
the grounds of arrest which are mandatorily required to be informed to
the accused in order to allow him to prepare his defence/challenge it.
During hearing arguments, IO sought permission to submit the DD
entry reflecting the communication of ground of arrest to the accused,
however, IO he failed to do so and submitted that no such DD entry was
made by him in this case.
13. The Supreme Court in the recent Judgment of
Kasireddy
Upender Reddy Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors., Criminal
appeal no. 2808 of 2025 (@ SLP (CRL.) No. 7746 of 2025) has
-- 5 of 8 --
Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 6 of 8
discussed the law laid down in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) in detail and
stated that :
18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said to
have been laid down, rather very well explained, in
Vihaan Kumar (supra):
a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of
the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory
constitutional condition.
b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under
Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important
fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the
person concerned must understand on what grounds he
has been arrested.
c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds
of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object
underlying Article 22(1).
d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as
may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of
the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under
Article 22(1).
e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of
informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after
the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest
is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in
custody even for a second. 27
f) If the police want to prove communication of the
grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is
necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the
diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest
must exist before the same are informed.
g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to
-- 6 of 8 --
Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 7 of 8
prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police
authorities.
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to
the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives
so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the
release of the person arrested at the earliest possible
opportunity so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1)
meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may
be rendered illegal.
14. It is pertinent to record that nothing has been produced by the
IO or the Investigating Agency to show that there was effective
communication of the exact grounds of arrest to the accused which is
against the constitutional mandate of Article 22 (1) of Constitution of
India. Mentioning of the Section of law in the arrest memo or the
reasons of arrest in the arrest memo are not sufficient compliance of
Article 22 (1) of Constitution of India as held in the above-mentioned
Judgment of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (Supra). Therefore, for
violation of Article 22(1) Constitution of India, considering his age and
submission made on behalf of the applicant/accused, the application for
bail is allowed.
15. Applicant/accused Deepak is admitted to bail on furnishing of
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like
amount subject to the following conditions :-
i. That the applicant/accused shall inform the court before leaving
jurisdiction of Delhi/NCR.
ii. That in case of change of his residential address, he shall intimate the
court about the same.
-- 7 of 8 --
Bail SC No. 341/25 STATE Vs. Deepak Page no. 8 of 8
iii. That the applicant shall appear before court on each and every date.
iv. The applicant shall not misuse the liberty granted by the court.
16. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be
given dasti.
17. No observations are made on the merits of the case.
( MUNEESH GARG)
ASJ-03, N/W, ROHINI COURTS
DELHI/02.08.2025
-- 8 of 8 --