In Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani vs. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra delivered a 30-page long judgement dated October 6, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"38. In the present case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate that the ground(s) for arrest/detention have been furnished in writing. Even as time was granted to the respondent, no document showing service of grounds of arrest in writing has been placed before this Court. 39. We have further found from the transit remand order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, that before the learned magistrate Bihar police produced the Case- diary (C.D. File) and a remand petition but there is nothing to indicate that the copy of the C.D. File and the remand application was served on the appellant two hours before his production before the learned magistrate. Therefore, in this case the prejudice caused to the accused is evident. The learned Magistrate didn’t satisfy himself with the compliance of Article 22 of the constitution of India read with section 50 Cr.P.C. [Now section 47 & 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In short ‘BNSS’)]. Perhaps, in absence of the service of grounds of arrest the accused- appellant couldn’t file an application for bail immediately before the learned CJM at Budgam, and before the learned special judge NIA at Patna. 40. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case for interference. His arrest cannot be sustained. 41. 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 impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 42. It will be open to the learned trial court to secure presence of the appellant in course of trial, if occasion so arises, by issuing coercive order(s) in accordance with law. 43. This appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above."
The Criminal Appeal was preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.2. The appellant was aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated July 15, 2025 (in Proceeding No. III) passed by Special Judge, NIA, Patna rejecting his prayer for regular bail in Special Case No. 10 of 2024, which arose out of Banjariya P.S. Case No. 229 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 317(5), 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 178, 179, 180, 181, 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The prosecution case is based on the self- statement of ASI Indrajeet Paswan recorded on September 5, 2024 at 18.15 hrs at NH-28A near Kharwa Pool, Banjaria, District-East Champaran, Motihari. In his self-statement, the informant has stated that on 05.09.2024 at about 5:30 hours in the evening, he along with other police personnel proceeded for patrolling and vehicle checking. When they reached near Shankar Dhaba, they got secret information that that from Jhakiya village three persons on one without number plate red coloured motorcycle are coming towards Khandwa Pool. One of the three persons have beard who was wearing blue colour T-shirt and black coloured pant and was carrying black coloured backpack in front of his stomach as also he is the person who was driving the motorcycle. Second person was wearing Khaki coloured Fullshirt and Blue coloured Jeans pant and third person was wearing white coloured T-shirt with lining and Black coloured Jeans Pant. All of them were carrying fake Indian notes. On this information, the informant has informed the senior officials and with the Shashtra Bal personnels, they proceeded towards Khandwa Pool where they found one red motorcycle with above description and three persons on it was coming. On seeing police personnel, they tried to flee away, but police personnel chased them and nabbed all three persons. Seeing this action of the police, nearby people gathered there. Thereafter, police asked their names. They told their names as (1) Md. Nazar Saddam, (2) Md. Waris and (3) Md. Jakir Hussain. The informant requested the people who have assembled there to become witness to the production-cum-seizure list to which all of them refused by saying that these accused persons are outsiders, if we become witness, anything bad can happen to us. Thereafter, two of the raiding team members, namely, Sukhram Bharti and Aditya Kumar were made witnesses to the production-cum-seizure list. Police asked for papers of the motorcycle from Md. Nazar Saddam but he could not produce any papers. The Engine number and chasis number of the motorcycle was worn out. It seems that the motorcycle was stolen one. On search of black coloured backpack, some clothes and hundred notes of 500 Rupees (total 50,000/-) two Aadhar Cards of Md. Nazar Saddam of different addresses was found. On search of his pant, hundred notes of 500 Rupees (total 50,000/-) was found. On search of Md. Waris, from his pant’s pocket, eighty notes of Rs. 500/- and from his shirt’s pocket twenty notes of Rs. 500/- (total Rs.50,000/-) was found. And on search of Md. Jakir Hussain, sixty notes or Rs.500/- from his pant’s pocket and thirty notes of Rs.500/- from his shirt’s pocket (total 45,000/-) was found. Altogether from all the three persons, three hundred ninety (390) fake notes total of Rs.1,95,000/- was found. On further interrogation, they disclosed that they used to carry these fake Indian currency from Pakistan via Nepal through one Rajesh Sahni. They used to transport these fake notes via Delhi to Sarfaraj @ Muzaffar Ahamd resident of Jammu Kashmir. They disclosed that they have done this many times earlier also. In the presence of two witnesses named above, seizure list was prepared, on these three accused persons have
put their signature. The informant alleged that from the above facts, it is clear that these three accused persons in conspiracy with other named accused persons were trying to use fake Indian notes in the market.
The investigation of the case was handed over to the NIA vide order dated December 10, 2024 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Before handing over the investigation to the NIA, the Bihar Police had already completed the investigation of the case and submitted a charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 310 of 2024 dated October 24, 2024 against four accused persons, namely, Mohammad Waris, Mohammad Nazar Saddam, Mohammad Zakir Hussain and Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani (the present appellant).
The appellant was arrayed accused number 4 in the charge-sheet. The seized mobile phone as allegedly revealed contained various PDF files of counterfeit currency notes, incriminating voice clips, photographs of suspected persons along with their contact details as well as incriminating chats related to the procurement and supply of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN). His connections with the co-accused have been highlighted in the charge-sheet filed by the NIA.
It was the case of the appellant that he was innocent, had not committed any offence and that the appellant was not arrested on the spot and nothing incriminating was recovered from his conscious possession. It was submitted that whatever counterfeit Indian currencies were recovered, were recovered from the possession of the persons arrested from the spot, one of whom is accused number 1. The appellant had interactions through Social media platform and by virtue of this interaction, they had developed a business relation. The appellant claimed that he was running a business of poultry farm at his local place and was exploring the idea of selling fruit through e-commerce platform, and in that process he came in contact with Nazar Saddam (A1) who was running an e-commerce business with the name of Zamad Online Shopping and Service Private Limited. In connection with the investment in the business in the e-commerce company of Zamad the appellant started investing his money from time to time. The story of transferring money for procuring ‘FICN’ was completely false and without any corroborative legal evidence. The appellant had taken a specific ground in paragraph ‘27’ of his memorandum of appeal that the appellant was arrested in complete violation of the law as the appellant was not served with the grounds of arrest, which would make his arrest completely illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. It was lalso submitted that the charges under Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act (UAPA) would not be attracted in the present case. The prerequisites for inviting applicability of these Sections is that there must be a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the UA(P) Act. It was submitted that in this case the appellant has neither produced, nor smuggled, or circulated the high quality counterfeit Indian currency or coin or any material. The counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case although trial is going on, till date only 3 out of 91 witnesses had been examined. The trial was not likely to be concluded in near future within a stipulated period.
It was submitted that earlier the High Court had occasion to consider the prayer of the appellant for bail. The High Court had refused to enlarge the appellant on vide order dated February 24, 2026. The Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1478 of 2025 preferred by theappellant was dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court, the appellant had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3238 of 2026 (SLP (Crl) No. 8196 of 2026) before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, having gone through the order of the High Court, noticed that the issue pertaining to the non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest to the appellant, though raised, had not been considered by the High Court. For this reason, without going into the merit of the case, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted it to the High Court to consider the said issue while deciding the bail application of the appellant.
In this background, the appeal was once again taken up for consideration on September 17, 2026. On that date, the High Court passed the following order:-“Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar learned counsel for the N.I.A. 2. This appeal has been taken up for consideration in view of the remand made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2026 in SLP (CRL.) No. 8196 of 2026. It is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court having gone through the impugned order found that one of the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant was that the written ground of the arrest memo was not furnished to the accused-appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this ground was not considered by the High Court.
In his submissions, Md. Tahir, counsel for the appellant has placed before the High Court, judgments of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. vs. State Rep. By Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2650 and Dr. Rajinder Ranjan vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 802. It was submitted that all these recent judgments of the Supreme Court have taken note of the judgment rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 in which the Supreme Court has taken a view that the ground of arrest in writing, it should effectively serve the intended purpose as envisaged under the Constitution of India and the ground of arrest must be made available within two hours minimum interval before the production of the accused before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that non-compliance with this direction would be in the teeth of the arrestee's constitutional right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The appellant's counsel had also submitted that in the remand requisition submitted before the Court seeking transition, there was no mention of furnishing of written grounds of arrest.
When the appeal was taken up for consideration, the ASG representing the NIA categorically stated that no written grounds of arrest seems to have been furnished to the appellant.
Justice Prasad recorded that the counsel for the appellant solely focused on his submissions with regard to
non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest, therefore, the High Court is not going into any other aspect of the matter at this stage.
In the case of Vihaan Kumar, the Supreme Court concluded: “26. Therefore, we conclude: 26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); 26.2. 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; 26.3. 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); 26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge-sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge-sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”
Justice Prsad observed:"...it turns out that mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The objective of the constitutional mandate is to place the person in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him and it can only be realised when the grounds are furnished in a language understood by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise his rights effectively. 52. From the catena of decisions discussed above, the legal position which emerges is that the constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form of fundamental rights. The intent and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. If the provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse.”
In the penultimate paragraphs of the judgement, Justice Prasad concluded:" (i) The constitutional mandate and the 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. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576:
(ii) 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): and
(iii) 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 (Now Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS); and
(iv) The judgment in Sri Darshan’s case (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a clear finding that the arrest memos and remand orders reflected that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. In such circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that no material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the present case, the facts are entirely different, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Darshan’s case (supra) is to be read as explained in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) in paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment. 37. In terms of paragraph ‘66.3’ of the judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Sah (supra), the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case, at least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee for remand before the Magistrate.
