Dismissed¶10

Shekhar Kansal v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC14 May 2025BAIL APPLN./1331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BAIL APPLN. 1331/2025, High Court of Delhi, Justice Sanjeev Narula, order dated 14.05.2025 — regular bail under S.483 BNSS denied to Shekhar Kansal in FIR No. 303/2024, P.S. Rani Bagh (Ss.376/376(C)/120-B/354/354(D)/328/323/506 IPC; Ss.6/10/17 POCSO; Prosecutrix aged 14). Fresh ground of non-communication of grounds of arrest (citing Vihan Kumar SLP(CRL.) 13320/2024, Pankaj Bansal (2024) 7 SCC 599, Prabir Purkayastha (2024) 8 SCC 254) rejected: grounds deemed communicated via the remand application before the Magistrate. First application BAIL APPLN. 4735/2024 was dismissed on 15.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Paragraph No. 4.7 of the earlier order of 15 January 2025 acknowledged but did not specifically adjudicate the non-communication ground; accordingly, the Court considered the merits of that ground afresh. ¶3

Shekhar Kansal Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether non-communication of the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest rendered the arrest illegal and entitled the Applicant to regular bail, urged as a fresh ground in the second bail application. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

¶3

Ratio / Principle

While not disputing the legal position drawn from the cited precedents (grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing without delay, as mandated by Article 22(1)), the Court held that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated immediately after arrest, when the Applicant was produced before the learned Magistrate and remand was sought; the reasons set out in the remand application adequately satisfy that requirement.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Court found no merit in the Applicant's contention that there was a non-communication of the grounds of arrest.ratio¶6
Supporting facts found: apart from the arrest memo, the State filed a remand application stating the purposes of detailed interrogation, which the Trial Court allowed, and counsel for the Applicant was duly present when the remand was granted.ratio¶5
The allegations against the Applicant are grave and serious: he is implicated under Sections 376, 376(C), 120B, 354, 354(D), 328, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 6, 10 and 17 of the POCSO Act in relation to offences committed against the Prosecutrix, who was only 14 years old at the time of the incident.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second regular bail application under S.483 BNSS by Shekhar Kansal in FIR No. 303/2024 (P.S. Rani Bagh; Ss.376/376(C)/120-B/354/354(D)/328/323/506 IPC; Ss.6/10/17 POCSO) dismissed (Sanjeev Narula, J., 14.05.2025). The fresh ground of non-communication of grounds of arrest was entertained, the earlier dismissal order of 15.01.2025 (BAIL APPLN. 4735/2024, Para 4.7) having acknowledged but not adjudicated it. While accepting, as undisputed, the position in Vihan Kumar and Prabir Purkayastha (referring to Pankaj Bansal) that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing without delay as mandated by Article 22(1), and the distinction between 'grounds of arrest' and 'reasons for arrest', the Court held the grounds were duly communicated immediately after arrest through the remand application placed before the Magistrate (Trial Court remand order dated 31.05.2025 as printed; Applicant's counsel present). Allegations grave; Prosecutrix aged 14. Bail refused; merits observations expressly not an opinion on the merits.

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1331/2025

¶4

SHEKHAR KANSAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Mr. Abhay Tripathi and Mr. Pawan Yadav, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State. Mr. Arun Khatri, Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Tracy Sebastian and Mr. Yogesh Gehlaut, Advocates for Complainant. Father of victim in person. SI Himanshu, PS: Rani Bagh.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

O R D E R % 14.05.2025

¶12

This is the second bail application filed by the Applicant before this Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,¹ seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 303/2024 for the offences under Sections 376/376(C)/120-B/354/354(D)/328/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860² and Sections 6/10/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,³ registered at P.S. Rani Bagh.

¶13

The first bail application filed by the Applicant before this Court

¶14

1 “BNSS”

¶15

2 “IPC”

¶16

BAIL APPLN. 1331/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 01/07/2025 at 00:20:03

¶19

[BAIL APPLN. 4735/2024] was dismissed by a detailed order dated 15^th January, 2025. Subsequent to the dismissal, the Applicant moved a fresh bail application before the Trial Court under Section 483 BNSS. In the said application, the Applicant raised a new ground for bail, contending that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him at the time of arrest, thereby rendering the arrest illegal, and entitling him to bail. Counsel for the Applicant submits that although the previous order of this Court, dated 15^th January, 2025, makes a reference to this contention in Paragraph No. 4.7, the Applicant had not actually raised this ground in that bail application. In any event, the said order does not deal with or adjudicate upon the issue of noncommunication of grounds of arrest. Therefore, the Applicant contends that this constitutes a fresh ground for seeking bail, which he is entitled to urge independently, particularly in view of the alleged illegality in the manner of his arrest. In this regard, the Applicant places reliance on the judgements in Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana⁴ , Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.⁵ and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)⁶ .

¶20

The Court has considered the contention raised by the Applicant. Although Paragraph No. 4.7 of the earlier order acknowledges the Applicant’s submission regarding non-disclosure of grounds of arrest, the decision does not specifically adjudicate on this ground. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to consider the merits of his ground of challenge.

¶21

It has been argued that although the arrest memo, prepared in a standard format, records the reasons for arrest, the same cannot be equated

¶22

3 “POCSO”

¶23

4 SLP(CRL.) 13320/2024.

¶24

5 (2024) 7 SCC 599.

¶25

6 (2024) 8 SCC 254.

¶26

BAIL APPLN. 1331/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 01/07/2025 at 00:20:03

¶29

with the communication of the grounds of arrest. It is contended that the grounds of arrest are distinct from the reasons for arrest, and that no such grounds were supplied to the Applicant either on the date of his apprehension on 31^st May, 2024 , or at any time thereafter. Reliance is placed on Vihan Kumar , which affirms the legal position laid down in Prabir Purkayastha , in which the Supreme Court, while referring to Pankaj Bansal , held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the accused in writing and without delay, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Further, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between “grounds of arrest” and “reasons for arrest” and held that failure to comply with this requirement invalidates the remand and entitles the accused to bail. 5. While the aforesaid legal proposition is not disputed, the Court is not impressed with the contention of Applicant. Pertinently, apart from the arrest memo, the State had also filed an application seeking the remand of the Applicant. The said remand application stated that detailed interrogation of the accused persons, including the Applicant, was sought to facilitate detailed investigation, as they had employed the same modus operandi to cheat other persons. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 31^st May, 2025, wherein it was noted that police remand of the accused persons was being sought to ascertain their involvement in the use of intoxicating substances and to investigate whether any other individuals, apart from the Prosecutrix named in the present case, had been similarly sexually abused by the accused. It must further be noted that counsel for the Applicant was duly present at the time this remand was granted by the Trial Court.

¶30

Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the grounds of arrest were duly

¶31

BAIL APPLN. 1331/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 01/07/2025 at 00:20:03

¶34

communicated to the Applicant at the stage immediately following his arrest, when he was produced before the learned Magistrate and his remand was sought. The reasons set out in the remand application adequately satisfy the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest to the Applicant. Accordingly, the Court does not find merit in the Applicant’s contention that there was a non-communication of the grounds of arrest.

¶35

It is further pertinent to note that the allegations against the Applicant are grave and of a serious nature. The Applicant is implicated under Sections 376, 376(C), 120B, 354, 354(D), 328, 323, and 506 IPC, as well as Sections 6, 10, and 17 of the POCSO Act, in relation to offences committed against the Prosecutrix, who was only 14 years old at the time of the incident.

¶36

In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged by the Applicant do not warrant any interference with the earlier decisions passed by this Court or the Trial Court.

¶37

Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to Applicant.

¶38

Dismissed.

¶39

Needless to state, any observations concerning the merits of the case are solely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶40

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶41

MAY 14, 2025 d.negi

¶42

BAIL APPLN. 1331/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 01/07/2025 at 00:20:03

Shekhar Kansal v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhar Kansal v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaman Lata Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashish Jain Vs Ashish Gupta

Surender Prashad Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Benjamin Rim Vs State(Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Rajbir Singh Uppal & Anr. Vs State & Anr.