Bombay High Court
SANTOSH BHIKU PISAL AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The bail applications were allowed because the arrests were illegal due to non‑compliance with Section 47 of the BNS.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by three newspaper vendors accused of murder and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution’s case relied solely on circumstantial evidence and alleged motives of a money dispute and an extra‑marital affair. The court examined the arrest records and found that the police failed to comply with Section 47 of the BNS, which mandates that the grounds of arrest be communicated in writing with date and time. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that non‑compliance renders the arrest illegal. Consequently, the court granted bail to all three applicants subject to standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether the police complied with Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in informing the accused of the grounds of arrest.
- Whether non‑compliance with Section 47 vitiates the arrest and warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the circumstantial nature of the evidence affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 140(1), 238(c), 3(5), 47, 48
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439, 47, 50A
- Constitution of India — s. Article 22
Subjects
- bail
- grounds of arrest
- Section 47
- procedural compliance
- circumstantial evidence
- Article 22
- constitutional rights
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3388 OF 2026
1) Santosh Bhiku Pisal (Accused No.1)
2) Aniket Chandrakant Pisal (Accused No.2)
3) Raju alias Babu Bhiku Pisal (Accused No.3) .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Vipul Dushing a/w Mr. Ashraf Kazi and Mr. Saurav Tadvi,
Advocates for Applicants.
Mr. Ashwin R. Kapadnis, Advocate for Original Complainant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State.
Ms. Dipti Kapre, API – Bhor Police Station, Pune.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Dushing, learned Advocate for Applicants; Mr.
Kapadnis, learned Advocate for Original Complainant and Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.71 of
2025 registered with Bhor Police Station, Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 238(c) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. There are three (3) Applicants in the present case. Applicant
Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 26.04.2025 and Applicant No.3 was
arrested on 30.05.2025. Applicants before me are all newspaper
vendors. Chargesheet has been filed. Prima facie on perusal of record
1 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
before me, it is seen that there is no direct evidence. FIR is lodged on
26.04.2025 about an unidentified male body found in a decomposed
state in Shirgaon.
4. It is the case of prosecution that the precursor to the present
crime is a money dispute between Applicant No.1 and deceased -
victim due to which the deceased victim had smashed car windows of
Applicant No.1’s car. Second reason for implicating Applicants as per
prosecution case is the alleged extra-marital affair between Applicant
No.1 and wife of deceased - victim. According to prosecution case, on
23.04.2025 an altercation ensued between Applicant No.1 and
deceased - victim when the victim was assaulted by Applicant Nos.1
and 3 with fist blows and iron rod and thereafter all three (3)
Applicants disposed off the body after smashing the head of the victim.
5. It is seen that case of the prosecution is completely based on
circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. However Mr.
Dushing, learned Advocate for Applicants would draw my attention to
the Arrest Form of Accused Nos.1 and 3 appended at page Nos.193
and 198 pertaining to these 2 accused persons where in Column No.8
it is merely stated that they are taken into custody on 26.04.2025 at
20:45 hours without any reasons stated therein, however their
intimation of “grounds of arrest” is a common letter issued to both of
them which is appended at page No.202 of the Application and when
the said letter is seen it is prima facie noticed that there is no date on
2 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
that letter of intimation and neither any time is stated. He would
further draw my attention to Column No.8 of the Arrest Form of
Accused No.3 appended at page No.227 of the Application and would
submit that the “grounds of arrest” which are to be informed and
served upon Applicant is blank and it does not bear the date and time
at all either.
6. PER CONTRA, According to Mr. Kapadnis, learned Advocate
for Original Complainant, the procedure followed is that on the Arrest
Form the time is written and the intimation of the grounds of arrest is
in continuation of the Arrest Form and hence the procedure is duly
followed. I am afraid and unable to comprehend this submission.
7. I have heard Mr. Dushing, learned Advocate for Applicants;
Mr. Kapadnis, learned Advocate for Original Complainant and Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent – State and perused the record
of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have
received due consideration of the Court.
8. It is pertinent to note that Section 47 of the BNS requires the
Police Officer to forthwith communicate the full particulars of the
offence or other grounds for such arrest and also inform the person
arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and he may arrange
for surety accordingly. Prima facie on reading page No.202 , it is seen
that there is clear non-compliance of Section 47 of the BNS to the
extent that no date and time is stated on the said intimation / Arrest
3 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
Form and most importantly Section 47(2) of the BNS is not complied
with at all.
9. Though, it is argued by Mr. Kapadnis that Section 48 of the
BNS has been complied with but that will come in the picture only
once Section 47 of the BNS stands duly complied with. Once this is
seen and the case of prosecution is purely based on circumstantial
evidence, then arrest of Applicants in such circumstances without
following the due procedure is deemed to be illegal on the face of
record.
10. It is seen that the Constitutional safeguard provided under
Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been effectuated by the
legislature by incorporating Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section
50 of CrPC, 1973) which puts into force the procedural mandate
providing for protection of personal liberty of the person so arrested. It
is seen that Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 casts a clear duty on the police
officer or any other person arresting a person without a warrant that
he shall communicate to him the grounds of his arrest. Section 47
reads thus:-
“47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.––
(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant
shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he
is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a
person accused of a non- bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested
that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties
on his behalf.”
4 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
11. It is seen that Section 50A of CrPC, 1973, now replicated as
Section 48 of BNSS, 2023 was further added to extend the scope of
such protection by casting a duty upon the person arresting to inform
such grounds of arrest either to his friend, relative or any other person
nominated by the arrested person. Section 48 of BNSS 2023 reads as
follows:
“48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to
relative or friend.– – (1) Every police officer or other person making any
arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the 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.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under
sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such
person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form
as the State Government may, by rules, provide.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person
is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and
sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested
person.”
12. From the mere reading of above provisions, I am of the view
that mere oral communication of such grounds, in the absence of
specific date and time and infact common intimation in case of
Accused Nos.1 and 2 would render the compliance of Section 47
susceptible to factual disputes which would otherwise result into
conflicting claims between the arrested person and investigating
agency.
13. Attention is drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and
5 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
Another1 wherein it was held that grounds of arrest are to be furnished
to the arrestee at the earliest and in writing in the language he/she
understands and in any case two hours before production of the
arrestee before the Magistrate for remand. Relevant paragraph Nos. 62
to 66 are reproduced hereunder:-
"62. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are 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.
However, 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. The remand papers shall
contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a
note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the
Magistrate.
63. The above indicated lower limit of two hours minimum interval before
the production is grounded in the functional necessity so that the right as
provided to an arrestee under the Constitution and the statute is
safeguarded effectively. This period would ensure that the counsel has
adequate time to scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant material
to defend the arrestee proficiently and capably while opposing the remand.
Any shorter interval may render such preparation illusory, thereby
resulting in non-compliance of the constitutional and statutory mandate.
The two-hour threshold before production for remand thus strikes a
judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee's constitutional rights
under Article 22(1) and preserving the operational continuity of criminal
investigations.
64. In view of the above, we hold with regard to the second issue that non-
supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or
immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the grounds of
non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50CrPC (now Section 47 of
BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds are supplied in writing within a
reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to the production of the
arrestee before the Magistrate for remand proceedings.
65. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule for supplying the
grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered
illegal entitling the release of the arrestee. On such release, an application
for remand or custody, if required, will be moved along with the reasons
and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in
1 (2026) 1 Supreme Court Cases 500
6 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
writing setting forth the Explanation for non-supply thereof within the
above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such an application, the
Magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a
week of submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
66. In conclusion, it is held that:
66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of
arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences
under IPC, 1860 (now BNS 2023);
66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the
arrestee in the language he/she understands;
66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be
so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a
reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of
the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate.
66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent
remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set
free."
14. The right of the person being arrested to know the reasons
of his arrest is a very valuable right as it would curb his freedom and
place him in custody away from being free and such drastic power
when exercised will have to be shown as exercised rather than simply
done. Once a person is apprehended he has a right to know the reason
and this can only be gathered from he having been informed the same
without any ambiguity whatsoever when so informed in writing and
his signature having been obtained on the arrest form informing him
the grounds of his arrest. This would be the correct logical
interpretation of Section 47 and submissions of Mr. Kapadnis that
intimation letter without date and time should be accepted as it is
without reasons being stated in the Arrest Form either cannot be
countenanced for more than one reason. It is observed that such
7 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
conflict results in jeopardizing the integrity of the arrest process and
thereby giving an opportunity to the accused person to claim
immediate release. It is observed that such situation can be obviated
by furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing with all particulars and
obtaining the signature or thumb impression of the accused person on
the Form of grounds of arrest with appropriate date and time specified
thereon, otherwise it is susceptible to manipulation.
15. Apart from the practical difficulties, it is seen that furnishing
grounds of arrest in writing with all details also results into effective
compliance of the mandate provided under Article 22 of the
Constitution of India. In present case it is observed that provisions of
Section 48 were complied with as per law however, prosecution has
failed to prove that provisions of Section 47 are complied with by
following due process of the law. In fact it is seen that the Arrest Form
and Section 48 compliance bearing the same date and time but
Section 47 compliance has no date and time.
16. Contention of the prosecution in the present case that
Applicants were informed about the grounds of arrest as envisaged
under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 cannot be countenanced and
accepted as due compliance in the above facts. This amounts to a clear
breach of the Constitutional and statutory safeguards provided to an
arrestee.
8 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
17. In view of the above and non-compliance of statutory
provision of Section 47 as noted above the 3 Applicants are directed to
be released on bail.
18. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
finding, Bail Application of Applicants is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) All three (3) Applicants are directed to be released from
prison in connection with CR. No.71 of 2025;
(ii) All three (3) Applicants are directed to be released on
bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand only) each with one or two surety of the like
amount;
(iii) All three (3) Applicants shall report to the Investigating
Officer at Bhor Police Station, Pune, once every month,
on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter
shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(iv) All three (3) Applicants shall cooperate with the
conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial
Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted.
Applicants shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Any such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply
for cancellation of bail;
(v) All three (3) Applicants shall not leave the State of
Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial
Court;
(vi) Applicants shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
9 of 10
44.BA.3388.2026.doc
(vii) All three (3) Applicants shall keep the Investigating
Officer informed of their respective current residential
address and mobile telephone numbers and shall
forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change
in their residential addresses or mobile telephone
numbers, as and when such change occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted
to the Applicants.
19. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
20. All three Bail Applications are allowed and disposed in the
above terms.
Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.22
15:18:35 +0530
10 of 10
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.