Supreme Court: Bail set aside despite absence of written notice of arrest grounds

The Supreme Court, a two‑judge bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, delivered its judgment in State of Rajasthan vs Jhabra Ram on 28 October 2026. The Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused and directed that the bail be cancelled, requiring the respondent to surrender within two weeks.

Jhabra Ram had been arrested on 30 January 2026 on allegations of espionage. At the time of arrest he was orally informed of the specific grounds, signed an arrest memo acknowledging the information, and his family was notified by telephone. The High Court granted bail solely because a separate written notice of the grounds had not been served. The Supreme Court examined whether the absence of a written notice violated Section 471 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and whether such a procedural lapse warranted bail. It held that oral communication together with the signed memo amounted to substantial compliance, and that bail could be denied only if the lapse caused demonstrable prejudice to the defence.

Consequently, the appeal succeeded and the High Court’s bail order was annulled. The regular bail that had been granted was cancelled, and the respondent was ordered to surrender to the authorities within fourteen days. The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities, in the absence of prejudice, could not by themselves justify the grant of bail.

Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: State Of Rajasthan vs Jhabra Ram (2026 INSC 1169).