Delhi High Court – Orders
Achin Birpalia & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi on 20 April, 2026
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2662/2026, CRL.M.A. 10800/2026
ACHIN BIRPALIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chawla, Mr. Arshdeep
Singh Khurana, Mr. Gurpeet Singh,
Mr. Jatin S. Sethi, Mr. Bakul Jain,
Mr. Harsh Yadav. Mr. Chetan
Nagpal, Mr. Manit Walia & Mr.
Harshit Melti, Advocates
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.
Upasna Bakshi, Ms. Divya Bakshi
and Mr. Gourav Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 20.04.2026
1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners seek setting aside of the
impugned order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the learned JMFC-02 (Mahila
Court), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi arising out of FIR No.65/2026
dated 10.03.2026 registered at PS: IFSO, Special Cell, Delhi, for offences
punishable under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 read with Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sections
66/66B/66C/66D/70/72/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
thereby, declaring the arrest of the petitioners as illegal.
2. This Court, on 08.04.2026, after hearing learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as learned APP for the State, observed as under:-
“3. Of the various assertions and grounds made/ raised in
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
the present petition, it is primarily the case of learned counsel
for the petitioners that neither of the petitioners were served
with the mandatory grounds of arrest in accordance with law,
which is evident from the grounds of arrest given to the
petitioner no.1 (page 120), petitioner no.2 (page 132),
petitioner no.3 (page 126) and petitioner no.4 (page 138)
[Annexure P/7 (colly)], since, even though they were prepared
on 06.04.2026, and which as per the consistent stand of the
petitioners which has not been denied by the prosecution, were
only served upon the petitioners one hour before the remand on
the next date being 07.04.2026. For this, learned counsel for
the petitioners has brought the attention of this Court to the
grounds of arrests served on petitioner no.2, which clearly
reflects that it was indeed served on the next date i.e. the day of
remand on 07.04.2026 and that too, at 02:00 A.M.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners moreover submits
that even the family members of the petitioners have admittedly
not served with the grounds of arrest in utter non-compliance of
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2025 SCC
Online SC 1228], wherein it has been recorded as under:
“18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said
to have been laid down, rather very well explained, in
Vihaan Kumar (supra):
xxx xxx xxx
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to
the arrestee but also to his family members and
relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to
secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest
possible opportunity so
as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and
effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered
illegal.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that
despite the aforesaid infirmities in the procedure of arrest, the
learned Court below while granting remand has recorded as
under:
“Arrest memo of the accused persons has been perused.
As per the arrest memo prima facie it appears that the
accused persons have been informed of the grounds of
arrest. Grounds of arrest were also furnished to the
accused persons in compliance with the Judgment of
Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024)
8SCC 254. The respective family members of the
accused were also given information regarding the
arrest of the accused persons. … … …”
6. Lastly, before concluding, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that though the petitioners had also moved
two separate applications, one being application for seeking
dismissal of remand application (Annexure P/3) and another
being application for supply of FIR (Annexure P/4), however,
neither of them have been considered by the learned Trial
Court while passing the impugned order as they don’t find any
mention therein.
7. As such, in view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the
petitioners seeks setting aside of the impugned order
8. Issue notice.
9. Learned APP for the State submits that because of the
urgency involved, and the urgent mentioning the concerned IO
is not present as of now. As such, he seeks, and is granted, a
period of three days for reverting with appropriate instructions
after ascertaining/ verifying the contents, particularly, about
the two applications mentioned above, as also for filing the
Status Report.”
3. Thereafter, on 16.04.2026, handing over a copy of the Status
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
Report, learned APP for the State opposed the present petition on the
ground that there was no non-compliance to serve the grounds of arrest on
the family members. As such, this Court proceeded to pass the order as
under:-
“…3. Learned APP for the State relying upon Kasireddy
Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2025
SCC Online SC 1228], opposes the present petition and
submits that information qua the grounds of arrest has duly
been served/ provided to not only the petitioners but also to
their respective family members.
4. This Court finds that it is mentioned in the Status Report
that “……Information of arrest was duly given to the family
members of the accused persons. After making arrests of all 04
accused persons, they were taken to their respective houses and
they were allowed to meet their family members. Their family
members met at the homes were duly informed about their
arrest. ……
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned APP
have been heard at length, however, they seek to address
further arguments on the only aspect of the failure of the
learned Trial Court to consider non-giving of the “grounds of
arrest” to their family members and if that can be constituted a
clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.”.
4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP
for the State have concluded their respective arguments.
5. Succinctly put, it is the case of the petitioners that since no ‘grounds
of arrest’ were furnished/ provided, in writing, to any of the family
members/ relatives/ friends/ such other persons as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information, the arrest of the petitioners is in clear violation of Article
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
22(1) of the Constitution of India. To buttress the aforesaid, reliance is
placed upon Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2025 SCC OnLine SC
269] and Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others [2025 SCC Online SC 1228]. Further, reliance is also placed upon
the observations made in Alvin Riby vs. State of Kerela & Anr.
2025:KER:67079 and Hemang Jadavij Shah vs. State of Maharashtra:
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2145 wherein the aforesaid view has been
followed by different High Courts.
6. Per contra, learned APP for the State relies upon the Status Report
to submit that although, the family members/ relatives of the petitioners
have been informed of the ‘grounds of arrest’, however, even though no
‘grounds of arrest’ were furnished/ provided in writing to the family
members/ relatives of the petitioners, the said mandate has been complied
with only ‘orally’. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced as under:-
“(v) Information of arrest was duly given to the family
members of the accused persons. After making arrests of all
04 accused persons, they were taken to their respective
houses and they were allowed to meet their family members.
Their family members met at the homes were duly informed
about their arrest. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the
Ld. Counsel of the applicants was also allowed to meet them
at IFSO office on 06.04.2026 after their arrest, and he was
also informed about the arrest of applicants. All the
applicants were duly represented by their counsels at the
time of first production of accused persons which clearly
reflects that applicants as well as their family members were
fully aware with the fact of arrest of accused persons.”
7. At the outset, it must be noted that, admittedly, though the
mandatory compliance of furnishing ‘grounds of arrest’ as per Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India has been effectuated on the petitioners
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
however, the said compliance qua the family members/ relatives thereof,
has not been complied with.
8. Be that as it may, the aforesaid issue qua furnishing ‘grounds of
arrest’ as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India in writing to the
family members/ relatives of the petitioners is no longer res integra.
Reiterating the prevalent position as regards the service of ‘grounds of
arrest’ to the arrestee as well as his/ her family members/ relatives/ such
other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for
the purpose of giving such information, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2025 SCC OnLine SC 269] held as
under:-
“21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of
grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article
22(1);
b) The information of the 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 the constitutional safeguard is achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on
the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with
the requirements of Article 22(1); …”
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. In fact, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh while fully
concurring with the aforesaid view, also made certain additional
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
observations as under:-
“2. … …The said constitutional mandate has been
incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of
the CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). It may also be noted that
the aforesaid provision of requirement for communicating
the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also required to
be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other
persons of the accused as may be disclosed or nominated by
the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information as provided under Section 50A of the CrPC. As
may be noted, this is in the addition of the requirement as
provided under Section 50(1) of the CrPC.
3. … …Therefore, the purpose of communicating the
grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his
relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but
to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his
arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him
through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to
secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for
actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the
requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in
writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the
friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed
or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful
and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered
illegal.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 SCC Online SC
1228 affirming the view expressed in Vihaan Kumar (supra), summed up
the legal position as under:-
“18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said to
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
have been laid down, rather very well explained, in Vihaan
Kumar (supra):
a) xxx xxx xxx
c) The mode of conveying the information of the
grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true
object underlying Article 22(1).
xxx xxx xxx
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to
the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so
that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release
of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so
as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and
effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered
illegal.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. Thus, what emerges from the aforesaid is that the mandate of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India i.e. furnishing the ‘grounds of
arrest’, in writing, is not only qua the arrestee, but also qua his/ her family
members/ relatives/ friends/ such other persons as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information, and any non-compliance thereof, be it qua the arrestee like
the petitioners herein and/ or qua their family members/ relatives/ friends,
shall render the said mandate ineffective and meaningless and may render
the arrest wholly illegal.
12. In fact, as evident from the phraseology used in Vihaan Kumar
(supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) thereafter, “… …the
grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to
his family members and relatives… …”, and that “… …the mode of
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01
conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so
as to serve the true object underlying Article 22(1)… …”; as also that “…
…when arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of
Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/
Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1)… …”,
it is evident therefrom that such arrestee like the petitioners herein “should
be provided grounds of arrest”, i.e. the same has to be ‘furnished’ to the
arrestee and his/ her family members/ relatives/ friends/ such other
persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the
purpose of giving such information something concrete, in a form and
which is more than mere ‘communication’ and/ or ‘sharing of
information’.
13. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow the present
petition as the family members/ relatives/ friends of the petitioners were,
admittedly, only informed about the ‘grounds of arrest’ and were never
furnished/ provided the same.
14. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and as a consequence
thereof, the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the learned JMFC-02
(Mahila Court), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi is set aside. The
petitioners are accordingly directed to be released from judicial custody
forthwith.
15. Needless to say, the State shall be at liberty to take recourse in
accordance with law to arrest the petitioners, if, as and when required.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
APRIL 20, 2026/NA/DA
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 23:21:01