Recently, the Rajasthan High Court heard a sensitive espionage-related matter involving allegations that a man was in contact with Pakistani handlers and had allegedly shared information relating to military establishments through electronic communication platforms. The case primarily revolved around whether mandatory constitutional safeguards during arrest were properly followed by the investigating agency.
Brief Facts :
The case was registered by the Special Police Station, District C.I.D. Security, Jaipur, under provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the prosecution, the accused was allegedly communicating with Pakistani handlers through WhatsApp and other electronic modes and transmitting sensitive information concerning military establishments. After the arrest, the investigating agency sought police custody remand. During proceedings, the issue arose whether written grounds of arrest had been supplied to the accused in compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements.
Contentions of the Petitioner :
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the investigating agency failed to comply with mandatory safeguards relating to arrest as the grounds of arrest were neither properly furnished nor communicated in writing. It was contended that such non-compliance violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. It was further submitted that communication of grounds of arrest is a substantive constitutional safeguard and not a mere procedural formality. Reliance was placed on Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah judgments of the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the State :
The State opposed the plea, contending that the allegations were grave and directly affected national security, sovereignty and integrity of the nation. It was argued that investigation had revealed the petitioner’s contact with Pakistani handlers and transmission of sensitive information. The prosecution further submitted that the accused had already been informed about the grounds of arrest through the arrest memo and that no prejudice had been caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. Reliance was placed on Kasireddy Upender Reddy and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan.
Observation of the Court :
The Court observed that the requirement of communicating grounds of arrest flows directly from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and has also been statutorily incorporated under Section 47 of the BNSS. It emphasized that the safeguard is meant to ensure fairness, transparency and effective legal defence for an arrested person.
Relying upon Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that “The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes…”
The Court further noted that the record did not show compliance with the requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest to the accused and observed that “the record does not indicate that the said grounds of arrest were ever furnished to the accused-petitioner in writing, which stand contrary to the settled judicial dictum laid by the Apex Court…”
The High Court also underlined the responsibility of courts and prosecuting agencies during remand proceedings and observed that “The constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest cast a corresponding duty not only upon the investigating officer effecting the arrest, but also upon the prosecuting agency and the Magistrate supervising the remand proceedings to ensure strict adherence…”
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations by stating that “The present case does not pertain to an ordinary criminal offence, but involves grave allegations relating to transmission of strategic and sensitive information to Pakistani handlers, thereby having serious ramifications upon national security and sovereignty of the nation.”
Decision of the Court :
The High Court held that the mandatory requirement relating to furnishing and communication of grounds of arrest did not appear to have been duly complied with. Consequently, the Court found the continued detention legally unsustainable and allowed the bail application subject to conditions. Liberty was also granted to the State to proceed in accordance with law if required.
Case Title: Jhabra Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4778/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R.B Sharma Ganthola, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
