Raju Sonker v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026

The applicant, Raju Sonker, sought bail in a criminal case registered against him and other accused persons.

According to the prosecution, the applicant and the co-accused went to the house of the deceased.

The prosecution alleged that the accused persons confronted the deceased and verbally abused him.

When the deceased objected to their conduct, the applicant allegedly caught hold of the deceased.

The prosecution alleged that the co-accused then took out a knife and stabbed the deceased in the right armpit with the intention of causing his death.

The applicant disputed the prosecution's case and contended that the allegation concerning the actual knife blow was specifically attributed to the co-accused rather than to him.

The prosecution nevertheless alleged that the applicant had actively participated in the commission of the offence by restraining the deceased while the co-accused inflicted the knife injury.

The prosecution case was supported by medical evidence relating to the injuries suffered by the deceased.

The applicant sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

One of the principal arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant concerned the manner of his arrest.

It was argued that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him in writing at the time of arrest.

According to the applicant, such failure violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS.

On this basis, the applicant argued that the arrest itself was illegal and that he should therefore be released on bail.

The State opposed the bail application.

The State argued that the applicant had played an active role in the commission of the offence.

The State also pointed out that approximately 25 criminal cases had been recorded against the applicant.

The High Court examined the prosecution allegations and found that the role attributed to the applicant and the co-accused was supported by the medical evidence.

The Court therefore considered that the applicant's case did not warrant bail on merits.

The Court separately examined the applicant's contention concerning the non-supply of written grounds of arrest.

The record showed that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to the applicant in writing.

The Court held that this constituted a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

However, the Court also found that the applicant was aware of the reasons for his arrest and had been legally represented from the beginning.

The applicant did not place sufficient material before the Court demonstrating that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing had caused him actual prejudice in the conduct of his defence or bail proceedings.

The Court also noted that the applicant had not properly raised the alleged non-compliance with Section 47 BNSS at the appropriate stage.

After considering the seriousness of the offence, the applicant's alleged active role, the medical evidence and his criminal antecedents, the Court refused to grant bail.

The bail application was consequently dismissed.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the applicant's bail application.

The Court first examined the allegations concerning the incident and the role attributed to the applicant.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant actively participated in the incident by catching hold of the deceased while the co-accused inflicted the knife injury.

The Court found that the allegations concerning the applicant and the co-accused were supported by the medical evidence.

The Court therefore concluded that the applicant did not deserve bail on the merits of the criminal allegations.

The Court separately considered the applicant's argument that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to him in writing.

The High Court expressly held that the record demonstrated that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the applicant in writing.

The Court held that such non-supply constituted a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and was contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah.

However, the Court did not treat that violation as automatically requiring the applicant's release on bail.

The Court noted that the applicant was aware of the reasons for his arrest.

The Court also noted that the applicant had been legally represented from the outset.

The applicant failed to establish that the procedural defect had caused him specific prejudice.

The Court therefore considered the violation while separately assessing whether bail should follow as a consequence.

The Court emphasised the seriousness of the charge under Section 103(1) BNS, which concerns murder.

The Court also considered the active role attributed to the applicant in the alleged incident.

The applicant's criminal antecedents were another factor considered relevant to the bail determination.

The Court noted that approximately 25 criminal cases were recorded against the applicant.

The Court held that personal liberty is an important constitutional value but is not absolute in the context of adjudicating a bail application where serious allegations and other relevant circumstances are established.

The Court also noted that the applicant had not properly raised the objection regarding non-compliance with Section 47 BNSS and had not demonstrated prejudice arising from the alleged non-compliance.

The High Court therefore concluded that the procedural violation concerning the written grounds of arrest did not, by itself, justify release on bail in the particular facts of the case.

The bail application was consequently dismissed.

Central issue: The case is significant because the Court accepted that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1), but nevertheless refused to grant bail on the particular facts before it.

Article 22(1) as a substantive safeguard: The Court did not treat communication of grounds of arrest as a mere procedural formality. It expressly recognised the constitutional violation resulting from failure to communicate the grounds in writing.

Section 47 BNSS: Section 47 gives statutory expression to the requirement that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest. The provision works alongside Article 22(1) to protect the arrested person's ability to understand and challenge the basis of detention.

Distinction between illegality and bail consequence: The most important aspect of the judgment is the distinction between recognising a violation of the arrest procedure and deciding whether bail should be granted in the particular proceeding. The Court accepted the violation but did not consider it sufficient, by itself, to justify bail in this case.

Mihir Rajesh Shah: The High Court accepted the Supreme Court principle that written communication of grounds of arrest is constitutionally significant. The Court nevertheless considered the particular factual circumstances relevant when deciding the immediate bail application.

Prejudice: The Court gave weight to the absence of demonstrated prejudice. The applicant was aware of the reasons for his arrest and had legal representation from the outset. The Court therefore did not find sufficient material showing that the procedural defect had impaired his ability to defend himself in the particular circumstances.

Important qualification: This reasoning should not be understood as eliminating the constitutional requirement. The Court expressly found that non-supply of written grounds violated Article 22(1).

Merits of the criminal case: The Court did not decide the applicant's guilt. It examined whether there was sufficient prima facie material relevant to bail. The prosecution's allegation that the applicant restrained the deceased while the co-accused inflicted the knife injury was supported by medical evidence, according to the Court.

Common intention: The allegation that the applicant restrained the deceased while another accused inflicted the fatal injury made Section 3(5) BNS relevant. A person may incur criminal liability for an act committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, depending upon proof of the statutory requirements.

Gravity of offence: The Court considered the charge under Section 103(1) BNS particularly serious because it concerns murder. The gravity of the alleged offence was therefore a significant consideration in the bail assessment.

Criminal antecedents: The existence of approximately 25 criminal cases was another factor relied upon by the State and considered by the Court. Criminal antecedents can be relevant to assessing the circumstances surrounding a bail application, although their mere existence does not determine guilt in the present case.

Personal liberty: The judgment acknowledges the constitutional importance of personal liberty. At the same time, the Court observed that liberty must be balanced against the interests of society and the circumstances of the criminal case.

Jaskaran Jeet Deol: The Supreme Court's decision discussed in the case is significant because it deals with the consequences of failing to provide written grounds of arrest. The present judgment must therefore be understood alongside that Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Difference from automatic bail: The important distinction drawn by the High Court is between the existence of an Article 22(1) violation and the immediate consequence of bail in the particular proceeding. The Court did not treat the former as mechanically producing the latter.

Section 483 BNSS: Since the application was for bail, the Court was required to assess the overall circumstances rather than examine only one procedural defect in isolation.

Impact on arrest jurisprudence: The judgment reinforces the importance of written grounds of arrest while demonstrating that the consequence of a procedural violation may depend upon the procedural posture, relief sought and factual circumstances considered by the court.

No final determination of guilt: The Court's refusal of bail does not mean that the applicant was found guilty. The criminal trial remains the forum for determination of guilt based on evidence.

Practical significance: Investigating authorities must ensure that grounds of arrest are communicated in writing to comply with Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS. At the same time, an accused challenging custody on this basis should clearly raise the objection and demonstrate, where relevant, the legal consequences and prejudice arising from the non-compliance.