Saga Legal | View firm profile
INTRODUCTION
The question of whether an improper or irregular arrest automatically entitles an accused to bail has been the subject of considerable judicial scrutiny. This issue has gained renewed significance with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), particularly Section 483, which governs the grant of bail.
While the Constitution of India and various statutory provisions lay down procedural safeguards to protect the liberty of individuals, the law also seeks to ensure that criminal investigations are not impeded by mere technicalities. Courts have consistently struck a delicate balance between safeguarding individual rights and preserving the integrity of criminal investigations. The jurisprudence that has emerged affirms that procedural irregularities in arrest, such as non-compliance with procedure, do not, by themselves, constitute a standalone ground for grant of bail. Rather, the decision to grant bail must be grounded in a holistic appreciation of the facts and circumstances of each case. This article examines the recent Karnataka High Court decision of Edwin Thomas v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition Nos. 101502/2025 and 101503/2025 – Judgment dated April 29, 2025), particularly in light of recent developments under the BNSS, and underscores the principle that procedural lapses alone do not ipso facto justify the release of an accused on bail.
STATUTORY OVERVIEW REGARDING ARREST
The right to life and personal liberty is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of these rights except according to procedure established by law. This constitutional guarantee encompasses the right of an individual to be arrested only through lawful means and in strict adherence to statutory procedures. Furthermore, Article 22(1) of Constitution of India states that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice and Article 22(2) of Constitution of India states that every person who is arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest.
In furtherance of these constitutional safeguards, Chapter V of the BNSS outlines certain safeguards, such as informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest, particulars of the offences for which arrest is made, and the right to bail, the right of an arrested individual to meet an advocate of their choice during interrogation, information as to the arrest of the person and where the arrested person is being held, to his relatives, friends or any other person mentioned by the arrested person, etc.
These provisions, when read collectively, establish a comprehensive statutory framework designed to balance the powers of law enforcement authorities with the rights and liberties of individuals and echoes constitutional vision of fair procedure. Any deviation from these prescribed procedures can raise serious constitutional concerns and may invite judicial scrutiny regarding the legality of the arrest.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT’S RECENT DECISION
In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka addressed whether procedural irregularities during an arrest automatically grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. In the case of Edwin Thomas v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition Nos. 101502/2025 and 101503/2025), the Petitioners claimed their arrests were illegal due to the local police not being informed. The Karnataka High Court clarified that procedural lapses do not automatically entitle someone to bail. It ruled that the arrests were not illegal, noting that the only irregularity was a failure to notify the New Delhi police during the transfer of the Petitioners, which the investigating officer apologized for. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Petitioners were not entitled to automatic bail and could seek legal action regarding their arrest, but the arrests themselves were deemed proper.
To substantiate their claim, the Petitioners placed strong reliance on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269) and Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma (2025 SCC OnLine SC 240). Both judgments pertain to instances where the Court found serious lapses in the process of arrest and recognized the breach of fundamental rights as a ground to grant relief to the accused and were considered to be misplaced. In the case of Vihaan Kumar, the Supreme Court intervened in light of a clear violation of the statutory safeguards and emphasized the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in the case of Subhash Sharma, it was observed that the arrest had been carried out in flagrant disregard of procedural requirements mandated by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Accused was denied access to legal representation and basic rights. These cases involved egregious violations which were absent in the present matter.
In the instant case, the Petitioners have not alleged any grave violation of their fundamental rights such as illegal detention, denial of legal counsel, or inhuman treatment in custody and neither have the Petitioners alleged that the grounds of arrest were not informed to them. Instead, the foundation of the Petitioners’ argument is based solely on a procedural lapse, which, by itself, does not render the arrest illegal in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or mala fide intent on the part of the police authorities. Furthermore, the Petitioners had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing a habeas corpus petition concerning the very same arrest. During the course of those proceedings, the Investigating Officer had tendered an unconditional and voluntary apology before the Court, acknowledging the procedural oversight, which the Petitioners had accepted without any objection. The said habeas corpus petition was thereafter voluntarily withdrawn by the Petitioners without pressing any further claim of illegal arrest. Therefore, it is evident that the Petitioners had already waived any grievance related to the arrest by accepting the apology of the investigating authorities and by choosing not to pursue the habeas corpus remedy to its logical conclusion. Hence, the Petitioners could not raise the same contention as ag round for bail.
This is in consonance with the concurring decision of Justice Bela Trivedi in the case of Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 449) where she voiced that, minor procedural lapse on the part of authorized officers may not be seen with a magnifying glass by the courts in the exercise of judicial review, which may ultimately end up granting undue advantage or benefit to the accused persons. The observation was made in relation to special acts and not with respect to offences under IPC / BNS.
CONCLUSION
The case of Edwin Thomas presents a significant judicial pronouncement that draws a fine line between procedural irregularity and illegality in the context of arrest and custody. While the Indian judiciary has time and again reiterated that violations of procedural safeguards, especially those impacting fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, can render an arrest unlawful and illegal, this protection cannot be extended to cover every minor lapse or technical omission by the investigating agency.
The Karnataka High Court, sends a clear signal that while procedural fairness is paramount, the same cannot be misused as a tool to escape prosecution. The Courts are duty-bound to protect individual liberty, but they must also prevent the dilution of criminal justice by frivolous or opportunistic claims framed on procedural grounds. The police authorities also have a duty to ensure that the arrest is conducted as per law and that the rights of the arrested person are not affected. More importantly, such lapses do not, by themselves, render the evidence adduced inadmissible, as courts are required to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case.
Hence, this serves as a reaffirmation of the principle that the grant of bail must be governed by a holistic assessment of facts, legal merit, and judicial conscience—not by technicalities devoid of substance. It also reinforces the judiciary’s balanced approach in ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected without compromising the integrity and efficiency of criminal investigations.
