Is an arrest memo that merely records that the grounds were explained enough? The Patna High Court has said no, holding that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception, and ordering an accused in a fake currency case prosecuted by the NIA to be released on bail. The accused is presumed innocent, the allegations are untested, and the Court has not examined the merits of the case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Patna: The Patna High Court on October 6 set aside a Special Judge, NIA order refusing bail to Sarfaraz alias Muzaffar Ahmad Wani, an accused in a case concerning the alleged circulation of counterfeit Indian currency notes, and directed his release on bail, holding that the NIA had failed to show that the written grounds of arrest were furnished to him in time [Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani v. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi].
A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra allowed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025 “to the extent indicated” in the judgment. The Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations.
The case in brief
The case arose from PS Banjariya Case No. 229/2024, registered on September 5, 2024, after fake Indian currency notes worth Rs 1,95,000 were seized from three persons apprehended near Khandwa Pool. According to the prosecution case, the three disclosed the appellant’s involvement in procuring and distributing counterfeit notes through a supply chain running from Pakistan through Nepal. These are allegations and have not been tested at trial.
The appellant, a resident of Dahmal in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested from Anantnag on September 12, 2024. Bihar Police filed a chargesheet (No. 310/2024) on October 24, 2024 against four accused, including him, under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The NIA took over the investigation on December 10, 2024, and the Special Judge, NIA rejected his bail plea on July 15, 2025.
The question before the Bench
The principal question was whether written grounds of arrest had been furnished to the appellant, as Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires. The Bench also examined what follows for the arrest, and for the statutory restrictions on bail, if that safeguard was not honoured, and whether the accused has to show prejudice.
The Court went through the Supreme Court decisions on the subject: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799, which made furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing mandatory; Ahmed Mansoor v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650); Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which requires the written grounds to be furnished within two hours before the arrestee is produced before the Magistrate; and Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India (2026 SCC OnLine SC 802), which reinforced that requirement and the consequences of non-compliance. It also considered State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702), which it distinguished on facts.
No room for doubt
In paragraph 36, the Bench set out its conclusions. On the constitutional and statutory mandate, it held:
“The constitutional mandate and statutory mandate as contained under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the CrPC leave no room for doubt that it would be necessary for the investigating agency/arresting authority, that a copy of the written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.”
On arrest memos that only say the grounds were conveyed, the Court said:
“If the arrest memo is simply a proforma indicating that the grounds of arrest has been conveyed, it would not be a compliance with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) and Dr. Rajindra Rajan (supra).”
It added that templates stating that the arresting officer explained the grounds before arrest do not satisfy the Constitution either:
“Templates of the arrest memo containing the statement to the effect that the arresting officer explained the grounds of arrest to the accused before the arrest, is no compliance with the mandate of Article 22 of the constitution of India read with section 50 and 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Why Sri Darshan did not help the NIA
The Bench noted that Sri Darshan was decided on a clear finding that the arrest memos and remand orders showed the accused there were aware of the reasons for their arrest, and held that the facts in the present case were “entirely different”. In paragraphs 37 and 38, it found that the NIA had not shown, despite being given an opportunity, that written grounds were furnished within the two-hour window before the appellant was produced before the Magistrate.
Prejudice
On prejudice, the Court observed in paragraph 39 that the Magistrate had not satisfied himself about compliance with Article 22:
“Perhaps, in absence of the service of grounds of arrest the accused-appellant couldn’t file an application for bail immediately.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reserves Order On Whether NDPS Accused Can Get Bail For Non-Supply Of Arrest Grounds
The directions
Setting aside the trial court’s order, the Bench directed:
“Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment/order of the learned trial court and direct that the appellant shall be released from custody, giving him the benefit of the ratio in the case Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). The appellant shall be released on bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The learned trial court may impose such other conditions as may deem fit and proper to secure the attendance of the appellant in course of trial.”
The Court also left it open to the trial court to secure the appellant’s presence during trial, if the occasion arises, by issuing coercive orders in accordance with law.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s recent line on written grounds of arrest to a prosecution by a central agency, where bail is otherwise hard to obtain. Its practical point is narrow and clear: a pre-printed memo recording that the grounds were “explained” will not do, and an agency that cannot show timely service of the written grounds risks the arrest being held non-compliant. The Court distinguished Sri Darshan on its facts, so the question of awareness versus written service will turn on the record in each case.
The release is on the Article 22 ground alone. The trial will proceed, the allegations remain untested, and the appellant is presumed innocent.
Case Details: Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani v. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi | Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025 | Court: Patna High Court | Bench: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra | Date of judgment: October 6, 2026 | Outcome: Appeal allowed to the extent indicated; bail granted. Allegations untested; no finding on merits.
Appearances: Md. Tahir, Kundan Kumar Ojha and Navneet Prabhakar for the appellant; Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (ASG), Arvind Kumar, Tirupati Gaurav Shahi and Angel for the NIA.