Written Grounds of Arrest Not Supplied: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Official Secrets Act Case

The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 01/2026 of the Special Police Station, CID (Security), Jaipur, under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Sections 152 and 238(b) of the BNS (para 1). The State alleged that he sent information about military establishments to Pakistani handlers over WhatsApp (para 4). On 31.01.2026 the Magistrate granted police custody, recording that the grounds of arrest were on the file and a Section 47 BNSS notice was attached (para 15). Seeking bail, he argued that written grounds were never furnished (paras 1-3). The State said he knew the grounds from the arrest memo, never objected at remand and showed no prejudice (paras 5-6).

Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS, formerly Section 50 CrPC, require that an arrested person be told the grounds of arrest (paras 9-10). Tracing Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha and Vihaan Kumar, the Court relied on the three-Judge Bench ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah: the grounds must be given in writing in a language the arrestee understands, and where they are conveyed orally in exceptional cases, in writing at least two hours before production for remand; otherwise the arrest and remand are illegal (paras 11-14). The case diary showed that the police had told the petitioner the basis of his arrest, but nothing showed that written grounds were ever furnished (para 16). He had not objected at remand, but neither the prosecutor nor the Magistrate verified compliance, so the illegality "persisted through the Magistrate" (para 17). Mere narration of allegations is not compliance (para 18). The State's reliance on Sri Darshan, which applied a prejudice test, failed: Ahmed Mansoor had distinguished it on facts, and Mihir Rajesh Shah leaves no scope to dilute the rule (paras 19-21). The national-security allegations made strict compliance more important, not less (para 22).