Supreme Court's Mandate In 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' On Supplying Written Grounds Of Arrest Applies Prospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) was made prospectively applicable from 06.11.2025. Therefore, at the relevant time, the grounds of arrest were not required to be supplied to the petitioner." Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Supreme Court's mandate in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which made it compulsory to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing across all penal statutes, operates strictly prospectively and cannot invalidate arrests executed prior to its pronouncement.

In a decision rendered on September 24, 2026, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that "the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah was made prospectively applicable from 06.11.2025. Therefore, at the relevant time, the grounds of arrest were not required to be supplied to the petitioner," while dismissing a regular bail plea under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by an accused facing murder charges.

The petitioner was arrested on May 28, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 381 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, Haryana, following the discovery of a woman's body in his rented accommodation. After the Sessions Court rejected his initial regular bail application on merits and a subsequent petition before the High Court was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner moved a successive bail application before the Sessions Court asserting that his detention was unlawful due to non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest. Following the dismissal of that successive plea on August 5, 2026, on the ground that the governing Supreme Court precedent applied prospectively, the petitioner approached the High Court through the present petition.

The primary question before the court was whether the constitutional requirement laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah mandating written grounds of arrest applies retrospectively to invalidate custody effected prior to November 6, 2025. The court was also called upon to decide whether an accused whose bail application has already been dismissed on merits can subsequently challenge the arrest on the ground of non-supply of grounds of arrest.

Supreme Court Mandated Written Grounds Of Arrest To Govern Arrests Henceforth

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi closely examined the governing framework established by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & another (2025 AIR Supreme Court 5554). The court noted that while the Apex Court elevated the communication of written grounds of arrest to a mandatory constitutional safeguard under Article 22 of the Constitution of India across all penal enactments, including the IPC and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), it explicitly recognized that statutory provisions like Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 47 of the BNSS did not historically provide a specific written format or strict timeframe.

The court reiterated that the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah had taken conscious note of the prevailing legal landscape, observing that "there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences." Consequently, to avoid administrative instability and ensure fairness, the Supreme Court specifically decreed that "the ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."

Apex Court Affirmed Prospective Operation In Sonam Raghuvanshi

"Mihir Rajesh Shah Is A Judge-Made Mandate Designed To Operate Prospectively"

The High Court placed extensive reliance on the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1392), which settled any ambiguity concerning the temporal reach of Mihir Rajesh Shah. The bench highlighted the Apex Court's clear pronouncement that the mandatory delivery of written grounds was introduced as a judge-made procedural requirement to give meaningful effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and for that precise reason, the decision was specifically made to apply prospectively.

The court noted that in Sonam Raghuvanshi, the Supreme Court had unequivocally ruled that where an arrest took place prior to the pronouncement in Mihir Rajesh Shah, an accused could not retrospectively claim invalidation of the arrest on the score that written grounds were omitted.

Accused Precluded From Raising Non-Supply Once Bail Is Denied On Merits

Addressing the procedural conduct of litigants, the High Court emphasized the principle articulated in Sonam Raghuvanshi that an accused cannot raise the non-supply of grounds of arrest as an afterthought in successive bail proceedings. The Supreme Court had clarified that although the stage at which fundamental rights are asserted is generally flexible, once an accused invites and warrants a full judicial finding on the merits of their bail plea, they are barred from pivoting backward to assail procedural non-compliance in earlier arrest formalities.

"When The Accused Person Warranted A Finding On Merits On The Earlier Occasions, It Is Not Open For Him To Go Back And Raise The Plea Pertaining To Grounds Of Arrest Thereafter"

The bench underscored that there is a fundamental demarcation between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons, pointing out that successive applications cannot become instruments to evade findings previously rendered on merits.

Pre-November 2025 Arrests Immunized From Retrospective Invalidation

Applying these established principles to the facts of the case, the High Court recorded that the petitioner had been arrested on May 28, 2024, whereas Mihir Rajesh Shah was pronounced on November 6, 2025. Because the arrest predated the landmark ruling, the investigating agency was under no legal obligation at the relevant time to furnish written grounds of arrest to the petitioner.

Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner’s first bail application had already been evaluated and rejected on merits by the Trial Court on August 13, 2025, without this objection ever being ventilated. The bench observed that having failed to prosecute his earlier petition before the High Court and having had his claim adjudicated on merits, the petitioner could not resurrect his claim through successive applications relying on a prospective judgment.

Holding that the mandate to communicate grounds of arrest in writing under Mihir Rajesh Shah cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate arrests made prior to November 6, 2025, the High Court dismissed the second regular bail petition. The ruling firmly cements the principle that an accused whose arrest preceded the landmark precedent cannot plead illegal detention on the absence of written grounds, particularly after an earlier bail plea was rejected on merits.

Date of Decision: September 24, 2026