Allahabad HC Grants Bail After Police Failed to Supply Grounds of Arrest or Prepare Disclosure Memo Before Recovery
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal granted bail to Sandeep Baisoya, finding the police never supplied grounds of arrest and skipped the mandatory pre-recovery panchnama at the police station, in violation of Article 22 and binding Supreme Court directions.
The Allahabad High Court on 22 May 2026 allowed the bail application of Sandeep Baisoya, an accused in a Ghaziabad arms case, after finding that the police had neither supplied him the grounds of his arrest at any point before the remand order nor prepared a disclosure memo (panchnama) at the police station before proceeding for the recovery of a country-made pistol. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting singly at Court No. 67, held that both failures were violations of constitutional and Supreme Court-mandated safeguards. The order also directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to issue appropriate instructions to subordinate officers and separately called out the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, for signing a printed remand proforma without any application of judicial mind.
The Case Before the Court
Baisoya was arrested in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2026, registered at Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad, under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He had been in custody since 13 January 2026. The charge sheet had already been filed by the time the bail application was heard.
His counsel, Sri Amit Saxena, raised two distinct procedural grievances alongside a parity argument. First, that the grounds of arrest were never communicated to Baisoya at the time of arrest or at any point before the remand order was passed by the Magistrate. Second, that before the police proceeded to recover the country-made pistol allegedly on Baisoya's pointing out, no disclosure memo was prepared at the police station as required by the Supreme Court in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2023 (11) SCC 255. Counsel also pointed out that co-accused Divyanshu @ Roki, said to have a similar role, had already been released on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10024 of 2026 on 10 April 2026.
The State was represented by Sri M.L. Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate.
What the Police Affidavit Revealed
On 12 May 2026, the court had directed the State to file a compliance affidavit. Sub Inspector Kamal Kant of Police Station Tronica City filed that affidavit. It did not deny that the grounds of arrest were never supplied to Baisoya before the remand order. It was also silent on whether a disclosure memo had been prepared at the police station before the recovery exercise. No reason was offered for either omission.
The learned A.G.A. for the State opposed bail but could not dispute these facts.
The Constitutional and Evidentiary Framework
Justice Deshwal drew on three Supreme Court decisions to frame the legal consequences of the police's conduct.
On the disclosure memo, the court relied on Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2023 (11) SCC 255. The Supreme Court had laid down in paragraph 78 of that judgment the precise procedure an investigating officer must follow when an accused in custody offers to lead police to a hidden weapon or article. Two independent witnesses must first be called to the police station. In their presence, the accused's statement must be recorded in the first part of a panchnama drawn at the police station itself. Only after that first part is completed should the police party, the accused, and the panch witnesses proceed to the location. Whatever is discovered there forms the second part of the panchnama. The Supreme Court had described this as “how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.” In the present case, no such panchnama was prepared at the police station at all.
On the grounds of arrest, the court applied Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799. That judgment held that grounds of arrest must be given to the accused at the time of arrest or at least two hours before the remand order. It placed the burden of proving compliance squarely on the investigating officer or agency. Paragraph 21 of Vihaan Kumar was quoted at length. The Supreme Court had held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand orders, and that a court must forthwith order release when such a violation is established — even where statutory restrictions on bail otherwise apply. The filing of a charge sheet, the Supreme Court had clarified, does not validate a breach of the constitutional mandate.
The court also referred to Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500, which reiterated that grounds of arrest must be given in writing. Paragraphs 57 and 58 of that judgment were quoted, affirming that while the grounds need not be given at the precise moment of arrest, they must be communicated within a reasonable time thereafter, and that this obligation applies across all statutes. The Supreme Court had described this as a requirement of “fairness and legal discipline.”
Taken together, the court found that Baisoya's arrest and remand were constitutionally infirm: the police had not supplied grounds of arrest at any stage before remand, and the recovery of the pistol was conducted without the pre-recovery panchnama that Section 27 of the Evidence Act, read with Subramanya, demands.
The CJM's Remand Order Criticised
Justice Deshwal examined the remand order annexed by the applicant's counsel. He found it was nothing more than a printed proforma that had been filled in and signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The court described this as “not only non application of judicial mind” but also a clear violation of the Supreme Court's directions in Vihaan Kumar, which had specifically required Magistrates to ascertain whether Article 22(1) compliance had been made before passing a remand order. The court directed the CJM, Ghaziabad, to be more careful in future, taking into account his period of service.
Systemic Direction to Ghaziabad Police
The court observed that non-supply of grounds of arrest and non-preparation of disclosure memos at the police station before recovery had become routine practice. It directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to look into the issue and issue appropriate directions to subordinate officers. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and to the District Judge, Ghaziabad.
Outcome
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16120 of 2026 was allowed. Sandeep Baisoya was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Standard conditions were imposed: no inducement or threat to witnesses, cooperation in trial without seeking adjournments, no fresh criminal activity, and attendance in accordance with the bond. Breach of any condition was stated to be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The trial court was directed to send the release order to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS). The office was directed to send a copy of the order to the Ghaziabad Jail Superintendent via e-mail or the e-prison portal within 24 hours, in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.