[Cites 25, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Nat Ional Investigation Agency vs Mr. M D Sulaiman @ Minaj on 6 February, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                            -1-
                                     CRL.A No. 1023 of 2025
                                  C/W CRL.A No. 858 of 2025
                                      CRL.A No. 927 of 2025
                                              AND 1 OTHER


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF February, 2026

                         PRESENT                        R
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                            AND
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1023 OF 2025 (21(NIA))
                           C/W
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.858 OF 2025
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.927 OF 2025
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.932 OF 2025

IN CRL.A No.1023/2025

BETWEEN:

     NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
     BRANCH OFFICE
     SY.NO.41/14
     NEAR HI-TECH CITY RAILWAY STATION
     (HI-TECH CITY-JNTU ROAD), KHANAMET
     MADHAPUR
     HYDERABAD
     TELANGANA-500 085
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.
                                                ...APPELLANT
 (BY SRI SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PP)

AND:

1.   MD. SHAHBAZ @ ZULFIKAR @GUDDU
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
     S/O. LATE MD. SABIR HUSSAIN
     H.NO.50, PURANI BASTI
     PANCHI MOHALLA
     NEAR GULMINAR MASJID
     JUGSALAI, JAMSHEDPUR
     JHARKHAND-831 006.
                               -2-
                                       CRL.A No. 1023 of 2025
                                    C/W CRL.A No. 858 of 2025
                                        CRL.A No. 927 of 2025
                                                AND 1 OTHER


2.   SHAYAN REHMAN @ HUSSAIN
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
     S/O. ATAUR REHMAN
     39 B, POCKET-3
     MAYUR VIHAR-1
     CHILLA SARODA KHADAR, EAST DELHI
     DELHI-110 091.

3.   MUZAMIL M.D.
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
     S/O. MD. ISMAIL
     DOOR NO.9, WARD NO.17
     II CROSS, S.N. PET
     (SATHYA NARAYANA PET)
     BELLARY, KARNATAKA.

     PERMANANT ADDRESS
     DOOR NO.98, WARD NO.11
     BANGAR STREET
     KOLMI CHOWK, BELLARY
     KARNATAKA-583 101.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
     (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

                             ***

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
(NIA) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 8-4-2025 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES) (CCH-50)
AT BENGALURU IN SPL.CC NO.1150 OF 2024, THEREBY GRANTING
BAIL TO THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.3, 4 AND 8 BY ALLOWING
THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (PRODUCED
VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

IN CRL.A NO.858/2025

BETWEEN:

     NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
     BRANCH OFFICE, SY.NO.41/14
     NEAR HI-TECH CITY RAILWAY STATION
     (HI-TECH CITY-JNTU ROAD)
     KHANAMET, MADHAPUR
     HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 085
                              -3-
                                      CRL.A No. 1023 of 2025
                                   C/W CRL.A No. 858 of 2025
                                       CRL.A No. 927 of 2025
                                               AND 1 OTHER


     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.
                                                 ...APPELLANT

     (BY SRI SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR
         SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PP)

AND:

1.   MR. M.D. SULAIMAN @ MINAJ
     S/O. M.D. SHAFI
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     RESIDING AT H.NO.33
     MAQBOOL SHA STREET
     COWL BAZAAR
     OPP. MOHAMMADIA SCHOOL
     BELLARY-583 102.

2.   MOHAMMED MUNIRUDDIN
     S/O. HC NOOR BASHA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     RESIDING AT FLAT NO.202
     2ND FLOOR, H. NO.61, 1ST CROSS
     SCHOOL ROAD, PRAKRUTHI NAGAR
     BYDRAHALLI PS LIMITS
     BENGALURU

     PERMANENT ADDRESS:
     DOOR NO.12/1, WARD NO.11,
     PINJAR STREET
     BELLARY-583 101.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI MURTHY DAYANAND NAYAK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
         SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)
                           ***

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
NIA ACT, 2008, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
11-3-2025 PASSED BY XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA
CASES) (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.1150 OF 2024
THEREBY GRANTING BAIL TO THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1
AND 5 BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A).
                              -4-
                                      CRL.A No. 1023 of 2025
                                   C/W CRL.A No. 858 of 2025
                                       CRL.A No. 927 of 2025
                                               AND 1 OTHER


IN CRL.A NO.927/2025

BETWEEN:

     NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
     BRANCH OFFICE, SY.NO.41/14
     NEAR HI-TECH CITY RAILWAY STATION
     (HI-TECH CITY-JNTU ROAD)
     KHANAMET, MADHAPUR
     HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 085
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.
                                                ...APPELLANT

     (BY SRI SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR
         SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PP)

AND:

1.   ANAS IQBAL SHAIKH
     @ANNU @ ARISTOCRAT BOY
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
     S/O. LATE IQBAL SHAIKH
     RESIDING AT DOOR NO.601
     A WING, TILAK NAGAR
     NISARG BUILDING
     CHEMBUR NO.78, MUMBAI
     MAHARASHTRA-400 043
     ALSO AT NO.69, ROOM NO.423
     B WING VISHAL GHAD CHS BUILDING
     MANKURD, MUMBAI
     MAHARASHTRA-400 043.
                                              ...RESPONDENT

     (BY SRI RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

                           ***

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
NIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14-3-2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA
CASES) (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN SPL.CC NO.1150 OF 2024
THEREBY GRANTING BAIL TO THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2
BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRPC
                             -5-
                                     CRL.A No. 1023 of 2025
                                  C/W CRL.A No. 858 of 2025
                                      CRL.A No. 927 of 2025
                                              AND 1 OTHER


(PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE A) AND ETC.

IN CRL.A NO.932/2025

BETWEEN:

    NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
    BRANCH OFFICE, SY.NO.41/14
    NEAR HI-TECH CITY RAILWAY STATION
    (HI-TECH CITY-JNTU ROAD)
    KHANAMET, MADHAPUR
    HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 085
    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.
                                               ...APPELLANT

    (BY SRI SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR
        SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PP)

AND:

    SYED SAMEER
    AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
    S/O. DADA KHALANDER
    RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2E
    WARD NO.26
    NEAR BELLARY FUNCTION HALL
    JAGRUTHI NAGAR ROAD
    COWL BAZAR, BELLARY-583 102
    KARNATAKA.
                                             ...RESPONDENT

    (BY SRI MURTHY DAYANAND NAYAK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
        SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADVOCATE)

                            ***

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
NIA ACT, 2008 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14-3-2025 PASSED BY XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA
CASES) (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.1150 OF 2024
THEREBY GRANTING BAIL TO THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.7
BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
                                   -6-
                                            CRL.A No. 1023 of 2025
                                         C/W CRL.A No. 858 of 2025
                                             CRL.A No. 927 of 2025
                                                     AND 1 OTHER


      THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 30-1-2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS
DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
            and
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


                            CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard learned counsel Sri. Sachin C., representing

Sri. Prasanna Kumar P, Special Public Prosecutor for the

appellant/National Investigation Agency, learned Senior

Counsel Sri. Murthy Dayanand Nayak, representing

Sri. Chandrashekar R.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused

Nos.1 and 5 in Crl.A.No.858/2025 and for respondent

No.7/accused No.7 in Crl.A.No.932/2025 and Sri. Rahamathulla

Kothwal, learned counsel for respondent/accused No.2 in

respective appeals.

Crl.A.No.1023/2025, Crl.A.No.858/2025, Crl.A.No.927/2025

and Crl.A.No.932/2025 are filed by the appellant/National

Investigation Agency(for short 'NIA') to set aside the orders

dated 08.04.2025, 11.03.2025 and 14.03.2025 passed by the

learned XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge(Special

Court for the trial of NIA cases),(CCH-50), Bengaluru in Spl.CC

AND 1 OTHER

No.1150/2024, whereby the respondents/accused Nos.1, 2, 3,

4, 5, 7 and 8 were granted bail.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution cases are as under:-

The case in RC-03/2023/NIA/BLR was registered on

14.12.2023 in NIA Police Station, Bengaluru on the basis of

credible information received by the Central Government that

many radicalised individuals aligned to ISIS ideology were

operating in Telegram groups from Bellary, Mumbai and

Jamshedpur and they were disseminating ISIS propaganda,

radicalising and recruiting youth into a jamaat

(organization) inspired by ISIS and they had hatched a

conspiracy to use young recruits for committing violent terror

attacks in India and besides Telegram groups, key members

were also handling their own local offline groups; the

information further revealed that in Bellary, Karnataka based

Mohammed Sulaiman @ Minaj/Accused No.1 was the main

operator and was suspected to be in contact with the foreign

based handlers for carrying out violent jihad in India; accused

No.1 and his associates were planning to create a jamath for

establishing Sharia rule in India, for which, he had already

made a road map and was circulating it for motivating and

AND 1 OTHER

recruiting youngsters; he further planned to recruit

50 Mujahideen in every District by 2025 to fight for toppling the

democratically elected Government and establishing Islamic

rule in India; that the module was in the process of procuring

chemicals and making explosives; that the accused persons

also conducted a trial blast at ITI ground, Bellary, Karnataka;

the investigation reports also revealed that accused No.2, who

hails from Mumbai was a key member of several ISIS linked

Telegram group and channels and was one of the

administrators of a radical Telegram group. Accused No.3, who

hails from Jamshedpur was the main operator of the group in

Jamshedpur; he had also floated a local offline group with his

associates; they were also in the process of procuring explosive

materials, pistols and grenades for conducting violent terror

attacks in various States like Karnataka in India; He had also

pledged funds for radicalisation and committing these attacks;

these radicalised persons were disseminating ISIS propagandas

with an aim to recruit and incite young persons to commit

violent jihad for the establishment of Sharia rule in India.

Accordingly, the Central Government, being of the opinion that

a scheduled offence under the National Investigation Agency

AND 1 OTHER

Act, 2008 has been committed and having regard to the gravity

of offence and its national security ramifications, the

appellant/NIA was directed to take up investigation of the

aforesaid case vide Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of

India order F.No.11011/102/2023/NIA dated 12.12.2023.

Consequently, the case was registered on 14.12.2023 by

National Investigation Agency, Bengaluru as

RC-03/2023/NIA/BLR under Sections 120B of IPC and Sections

17, 18, 18B and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,

1967('UAP' Act for short) and accordingly the investigation was

initiated and later the Investigating Officer, investigated the

matter. The respondents/accused persons were secured by the

Investigating Officer and in turn, they were remanded to

judicial custody and the Investigating Officer filed the charge

sheet against the respondents for the aforesaid offences.

Before the Special Court, the respondents filed applications

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in the matter and the

Special Court granted bail as follows:-

1. In Crl.A.No.1023/2025, accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 were

granted bail on 08.04.2025.

- 10 -

AND 1 OTHER

2. In Crl.A.No.858/2025, accused Nos.1 and 5 were granted

bail on 11.03.2025;

3. In Crl.A.No.927/2025, accused No.2 was granted bail on

14.03.2025; and

4. In Crl.A.No.932/2025, accused No.7 was granted bail on

14.03.2025.

3. The Special Court, while granting bail in favour of the

respondents/accused, was of the opinion that the grounds of

arrest were not furnished to the respondents/accused and

hence, the accused were granted bail. Being aggrieved by the

impugned orders, the appellant/NIA has preferred these

appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/NIA contends that the

impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge enlarging

the respondents/accused on bail is contrary to law, facts and

material on record and in fact, at the time of arrest of the

respondents, they were duly informed of the grounds of their

arrest including the conspiracy orchestrated by them in

collusion with other co-accused persons against Government of

- 11 -

AND 1 OTHER

India, in the presence of two independent witnesses. Later, the

respondents/accused were placed under arrest on 18.12.2023

in NIA case in RC-03/2023/NIA/BLR dated 14.12.2023 in

connection with conspiracy hatched by them, for the offences

under Section 120B, IPC and Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of

UAP Act, and they were intimated in writing under Section 50 of

Cr.P.C., about the same. The respondents/accused were also

informed in writing that they would be produced before the

jurisdictional Court on 19.12.2023 and the matter regarding

their arrest had been intimated to their family members by

mentioning the name and the relation of family members and

that if they desire, they might appoint a legal counsel to

represent them in the case before the NIA Special Court in

connection with the instant cases. Thus, while giving arrest

intimation to the respondents/accused, their family members

were intimated about the grounds of arrest of the accused and

the main ground of their arrest i.e. conspiracy hatched by them

in the instant cases were also highlighted in the written

intimation under Section 50 Cr.P.C.

5. He further contends that the arrest of the

respondents/accused was communicated in the presence of

- 12 -

AND 1 OTHER

independent witnesses and the respondents/accused were

informed of the grounds of arrest in the presence of the

independent witnesses. Further, the arrest memos were

provided to the respondents/accused, who also acknowledged

its receipt. Further, Column No.6 of Arrest memo explicitly

shows that the grounds of arrest were explained to the

respondents/accused and the same was duly acknowledged by

both independent witnesses as well as the accused persons

along with their signatures, which have not been denied by the

respondents/accused at any point of time.

6. Learned counsel further contends that after the arrest,

the respondents/accused were provided with ample

opportunities to defend their case at the time of remand and

thereby the requirements of Section 50 of Cr.P.C were duly

complied with. When such being the case, the learned Special

Judge has committed an error in holding that the grounds of

arrest have not been made available by the appellant/NIA to

the respondents/accused.

7. Learned counsel further contends that the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Prabhir Purkayastha v. State

- 13 -

AND 1 OTHER

(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 was pleased to

hold that the interpretation of statutory mandate laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India

and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 on the aspect of

informing the arrested persons of the grounds of arrest in

writing has to be applied in a case registered under the

provisions of the UAP Act. The respondents/accused in the

present cases have been arrested on 18.12.2023 and produced

before the Special Court. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Prabir's case referred supra having been delivered on

15.05.2024, the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondents/accused that the same would have retrospective

effect, however, as there is no clarity in respect of arrest

effected after the decision of Pankaj Bansal's case and prior

to Prabir's case., the said contention of learned counsel for the

respondents/accused does not find any merit or basis in law

and in that view of the matter, the impugned orders are liable

to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel further contend that in the light of

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma

- 14 -

AND 1 OTHER

v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC

562, wherein it is clarified that, when the court lays down the

correct law, in which, the prevalent understanding of the law

undergoes a change, the operation is restricted to the future,

so that it does not affect the past transactions. Even otherwise,

it is to be noted that Article 22 of the Constitution of India and

Section 50 of Cr.P.C have been in existence since inception. But

it is only on 15.05.2024, that the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified

that the requirement of serving grounds of arrest in writing

would be applicable to UAP Act matters as well. Moreover the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of

Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SC Online SC 269,

(Crl.A.@ SLP (Crl.) No.13320/2024 decided on 07.02.2025)

has clearly stated that although there is no requirement to

communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, what is stated in

paragraph Nos.42 and 43 of the decision in Pankaj Bansal's

case, are suggestions that merit consideration. Further, it is

contended that Section 43D(5) proviso of UAP Act would

indicate that when there is material placed before the Special

Court, which would indicate the existence of a prima-facie case,

then the Special Court shall decline the relief of bail. Thus, in

- 15 -

AND 1 OTHER

the instant cases, when the appellant/NIA has placed sufficient

material to indicate the existence of a prima-facie case, the

applications filed by the respondents/accused for bail ought to

have been rejected by the Special Court and hence, he prays

that the impugned orders be set aside and the appeals be

allowed.

9. In support of his contention, learned Special Public

Prosecutor relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576;

2. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2024) 7 SCC 599;

3. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254;

4. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269;

5. Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1228;

6. Karan Singh v. State NCT of Delhi in (W.P.(Crl.) 4203/2025 dated 23.01.2026;

7. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2356;

8. State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702.

- 16 -

AND 1 OTHER

10. Per-contra, learned Senior Counsel and learned

counsel appearing for the respective respondents/accused

would vehemently contend that the requirement of informing a

person of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The information of

grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in

such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts

constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the

arrested person effectively in the language which he

understands. The mode and method of communication must be

such that the object of constitutional safeguard is achieved.

When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the

requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the

Investigating Agency to prove compliance with the

requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Thus,

non compliance with Article 22(1) will be violation of the

fundamental rights of the accused persons, which are

guaranteed by the said Article and moreover, it would amount

to violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article

21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non compliance with the

requirement of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused

- 17 -

AND 1 OTHER

persons. Hence, further orders passed by the Criminal Court for

remand are also vitiated. Further, when an arrested person is

produced before the Special Court for remand, it is the duty of

Special Court to ascertain whether compliance with Article

22(1) and other mandatory safeguards have been made and

when violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of

the Court to forthwith order the release of the accused persons

and that will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory

restrictions on the grant of bail exists. The statutory restrictions

do not affect the power of the Court to grant bail when violation

of Article 21 and 22 of Constitution of India is established.

11. Learned Senior Counsel further contend that the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir's case and Vihaan

Kumar's case referred supra have the same view that an

arrested person has a fundamental and statutory right to be

informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of

such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the

arrested person as a matter of course and report without

exception at the earliest. Any infringement of this fundamental

right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.

- 18 -

AND 1 OTHER

12. Learned Senior Counsel further contend that the

appellant/NIA has not provided the copy of grounds of arrest

before the Special Court in writing to substantiate that soon

after their arrest, the accused and their relatives were provided

with grounds of arrest and they were accorded to avail their

counsels.

13. Learned Senior counsel relying on the decision of

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Court in the case of Thokchom

Shyamjai Singh and Others v. Union of India through

Home Secretary and others reported in 2025 SCC Online

Delhi 980, wherein a similar issue was raised before the

Hon'ble High Court, specifically whether the constitutional

mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee

under UAP Act comes into effect from the date of the Supreme

Court's verdict in Pankaj Bansal's case or Prabir's case, the

High Court of Delhi held therein that the constitutional mandate

for serving grounds of arrest in writing comes into effect from

the date of judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case i.e. from

03.10.2023 and the Special Court considered that the

constitutional mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing

under the UAP Act comes into effect from the date of the

- 19 -

AND 1 OTHER

verdict in Pankaj Bansal's case. Learned counsel further

further contends that considering all the factual and legal

aspects of the matter, the Special Court granted bail to the

respondents/accused considering that the respondents/accused

persons were not furnished with the grounds of arrest.

Therefore, the bail granted to the respondents by the Special

Court is in accordance with law and the reasons assigned by

the Special Court is also well founded and there is no merit in

the contention of learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/NIA that the bail granted to the respondent/accused

may be cancelled. Accordingly, learned counsels for the

respondents prayed to dismiss the appeals.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of

their contentions relied on the following decisions:-

1. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) in (2024) 8 SCC 254;

2. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another in (2025) 5 SCC 799;

3. Thokchom Shyamjai Singh Others v. Union of India and others in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 980;

- 20 -

AND 1 OTHER

4. Ahmed Mansoor and Others v. State represented by Assistant commissioner of Police and another in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650;

5. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another in 2025 SCC OnLine 2356;

6. Mahesh Panduranga Naik v. State of Maharashtra and another in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3918; and

7. Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1318

15. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the

submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the

material placed on record and the point that would arise for our

consideration is as under:-

"Whether the appellant/NIA has assigned valid

reasons to cancel the bail granted by the Special

Court to the respondents/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 7 and 8, thereby allowing the appeals?"

16. Upon a careful perusal of the material available on

record, charges levelled that the respondents/accused are that

they were involved in the aforesaid offences and they were

- 21 -

AND 1 OTHER

enlarged on bail by the Special Court solely on the ground that

they were not provided with grounds of arrest before their

arrest, in writing.

17. The interpretation given by learned Special Judge is

that the grounds of arrest was not conveyed to the accused in

writing, for which, the arrest memo is unacceptable on the face

of record and also that the arrest memo does not indicate the

grounds of arrest being incorporated in the said document.

Column No.6 of Arrest Memo which is being reproduced simply

sets out the reasons for arrest, which are formal in nature and

can be generally attributed to any person arrested on

accusation of an offence, whereas, the grounds of arrest would

be personal in nature and specific to the person arrested. As

per the term 'reasons for arrest', it means and it includes

a)prevent the accused person from committing any further

offence, b) for proper investigation of the offence, c) to prevent

the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to

disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner,

d) to prevent such person from making any infringement from

a person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the police

- 22 -

AND 1 OTHER

officer and e) As unless such person is arrested, his presence

in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.

18. The Remand Order clearly reveals that the copy of

remand application was submitted to the Special Court and the

reasons for arrest was also appended to the remand

application.

19. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that

there is a significant difference in the phrase 'reasons for arrest'

and 'grounds of arrest'. The 'reasons for arrest' as indicated in

the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz., to prevent

the accused person from committing any further offence, for

proper investigation of the offence, to prevent the arrested

person from causing of evidence to disappear or tampering with

such evidence in any manner, to prevent the arrested person

from making inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case. These reasons would

commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of crime,

whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would require containing all

such details in the hand of the Investigating Officer, which

necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the

- 23 -

AND 1 OTHER

grounds of arrest informed in writing must be conveyed to the

arrested accused, of all basic facts, on which, he is being

arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending

himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus the

grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused

and cannot be equated with the reasons for reasons of arrest,

which are general in nature.

20. Since the appellants/accused have raised a question

mark about legality of their arrest, we have looked into the

matter from that limited angle.

21. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Article

22(1) of Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person

who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being

informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.

Such constitutional safeguard was further strengthened by

procedural law.

22. Section 50 of Cr.P.C 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS

2023) which reiterates the same by casting duty upon police

officer who is arresting any person (without warrant) to

forthwith communicate to arrestee, full particulars of the

- 24 -

AND 1 OTHER

offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such

arrest.

23. Section 48 of BNSS 2023 further provides that

arresting police officer shall forthwith give information

regarding such arrest and place, where the arrested person is

being held, to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons

as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for

the purpose of giving such information and also to the

designated police officer in the district. It also, inter alia,

provides requisite vigil over compliance by making it obligatory

for the concerned Magistrate to satisfy himself that such

requirements have been complied with.

24. In Pankaj Bansal's case (supra), the question was

that of the requirement of written grounds of arrest being

provided in an arrest under Section 19 of Prevention of Money

Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

in order to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional

and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing

the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, held that it would

be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds

- 25 -

AND 1 OTHER

of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of

course and without exception.

25. In Prabir's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex court,

while dealing with a case under Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act, 1967 (UAPA), reiterated the aforesaid constitutional

requirement in context of arrest under said Act also and

observed that there was no doubt that any person arrested for

allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of

UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental

and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of

arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest

have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of

course and without exception at the earliest.

26. In Vihaan's case (supra), the accused had been

arrested for a case of cheating. It was pleaded that grounds of

arrest were never communicated and moreover the accused

was handcuffed and chained, when after arrest, he was

hospitalized. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating that

the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of

arrest was mandatory one, supplemented that the mode and

- 26 -

AND 1 OTHER

method of communication must be such that the object of the

constitutional safeguard is achieved. It also held that any

infraction thereof would not vitiate the investigation, charge

sheet and trial but, at the same time, filing of chargesheet

would not validate breach of constitutional mandate provided

under Article 22(1), either. It, however, also observed that

although there is no requirement to communicate the grounds

of arrest in writing, what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of

the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) were

suggestions which merited consideration. It was also observed

that, in every case, it may not be practicable to implement

what is suggested above, supplementing that if the course, as

suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non-

compliance will not arise at all.

27. In Mihir's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

while reiterating the compliance of aforesaid mandatory

requirement, went on to hold that, in cases where the police is

already in possession of documentary material furnishing a

cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must

be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest.

- 27 -

AND 1 OTHER

28. Thus, what emerges from the above is that the

legislative intent behind serving the grounds of arrest is to

enable the arrested person to effectively secure legal

representation and to promptly seek any appropriate legal

remedies available, so that, such remedies may be exercised

without any delay. This requirement is designed to empower

not only the arrestee but also those in a position to act on his

behalf, thereby safeguarding the right to life and personal

liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Mihir's

case (supra) observed that, in exceptional circumstances such

as offences against body or property committed in flagrante

delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on

arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police

officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the

same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy

of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person

within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours

prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for

remand proceedings.

- 28 -

AND 1 OTHER

30. Infact, the date of decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah

(supra) is 06.11.2025 and admittedly, the appellants herein

had been arrested much earlier i.e. on 18.12.2023 and,

therefore, they cannot be permitted to raise any grievance.

31. The grievance about the alleged procedural lapse has

been raised very belatedly i.e. after more than almost one year

of the arrest and there is no whisper of any prejudice being

caused to the appellants, who were represented by counsel

from day one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State

of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan reported in 2025 SCC OnLine

SC 1702 has held that while compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C is

mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt

a 'prejudice-oriented test' when examining alleged procedural

lapses and, further held that mere absence of written

grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal,

unless it results in demonstrable prejudice by denial of a

fair opportunity to the accused to defend themselves and

absence of any demonstrated prejudice, coupled with the

inordinate delay in raising the grievance.

- 29 -

AND 1 OTHER

32. Though the grounds of arrest is not in writing, the

same is informed orally to the accused and their relatives and

two independent witnesses have acknowledged the same and

there is a delay in urging the said ground. As the accused have

failed to secure bail even after making all efforts, earlier, a new

ground is raised that they were not informed in writing about

the grounds of arrest and not made out any demonstrable

prejudice caused to defend the same and only after thought

invoked the ground when unsuccessful earlier.

33. Considering the detailed analysis made above, there

is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a

conclusion that the copy of remand application in the purported

exercise of grounds of arrest in writing was provided to the

respondents/accused persons before passing of the order of

remand and applied judicious mind. Thus it will not vitiate the

arrest and subsequent remand of the respondents/accused. As

a result, the respondents/accused are not entitled for bail and

the impugned orders passed by the Special Court granting bail

to the respondents are liable to be set-aside and the bail

granted to the respondents/accused persons is liable to be

cancelled.

- 30 -

AND 1 OTHER

34. Hence, we pass the following:

ORDER

1. Crl.A.No.1023/2025, Crl.A.No.858/2025,

Crl.A.No.927/2025 and Crl.A.No.932/2025 filed by

the appellant/National Investigation Agency(NIA)

are allowed.

2. The impugned orders dated 08.04.2025,

11.03.2025 and 14.03.2025 passed in Spl.CC

No.1150/2024 by the learned XLIX Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge(Special Court for the trial

of NIA cases),(CCH-50), Bengaluru is set-aside and

the bail granted to the respondents/accused Nos.1,

2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is hereby cancelled. The

concerned authorities are directed to take accused

Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 into custody.