Grounds of arrest objection raised belatedly can’t secure bail: Rajasthan High Court in NIA explosives case

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the bail appeal of a man accused of supplying ammonium nitrate to the principal accused in a Nagaur explosives recovery case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency, holding that a challenge to the insufficiency of the grounds of arrest memo — raised for the first time in the bail application, never once pressed during multiple remand appearances before the Magistrate — cannot be the basis for release at such a belated stage.

A division bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain (who authored the order) and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas drew a pointed distinction between the reason for arrest and the grounds of arrest, noting that the arresting officer’s memo dated 30.01.2026 only cited the penal provisions without disclosing any specific grounds, and observed that “the reason of arrest is different than the grounds of arrest and SHO has failed to understand the difference between these two.”

Characterising the situation as “insufficient communication” rather than “non-communication,” the bench stated:

“The memo to inform the grounds of arrest only indicate that accused has committed offence punishable under the Explosive Act, Explosive Substance Act and BNS but it has not disclosed the grounds of arrest. The reason of arrest is different than the grounds of arrest and SHO has failed to understand the difference between these two. The memo dated 30.01.2026 nowhere mentioned that the grounds of arrest were communicated orally to the petitioner.”

The case arose from a police search of an agricultural farm belonging to Suleman Khan at Nagaur on Jan 25, 2026, which yielded 187 bags of ammonium nitrate, 9 cartons of detonators and other material used in the manufacture of explosives. An FIR was registered at Thanwala police station, Nagaur under Sections 5 and 9-B of the Explosive Act 1884, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, and Sections 112(2) and 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

Suleman Khan was arrested the same day. On the basis of his interrogation — which identified the present appellant Bharat Kumar Sankhla as the source of the ammonium nitrate — the appellant and three others were arrested on Jan 30, 2026 and produced before the ACJM, Degana, District Nagaur. The Ministry of Home Affairs, invoking Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act 2008, directed the National Investigation Agency to take over investigation on Feb 2, 2026, following which NIA registered an FIR at PS NIA, Jaipur on Feb 4, 2026. The Special Judge (NIA Cases), Rajasthan dismissed Sankhla’s bail application under Section 483 of BNSS on Mar 25, 2026, prompting the present appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act.

Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tapendra Sankhla and Mr. Ashok Choudhary, submitted that the entire case against Sankhla rested on the interrogation note of co-accused Suleman Khan with no independent evidence, and that statements of a co-accused are inadmissible against the petitioner unless a recovery is effected pursuant to such information. They further argued that ammonium nitrate is not an explosive per se and cannot self-detonate, and therefore Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was not attracted — and the NIA consequently lacked jurisdiction. They also pressed violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162), Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, urging that non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest rendered the arrest and all subsequent remand orders illegal, entitling the appellant to bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions.

The Special Public Prosecutor for NIA, Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, countered that grounds of arrest were communicated through a signed memo on Jan 30, 2026 acknowledged by the petitioner, and that the charge sheet has already been filed. He pointed to UPI transaction records, bank details and transcripts of recorded calls between Sankhla and Suleman Khan as establishing the petitioner’s direct involvement, and submitted that the appellant’s refusal to furnish a voice sample raised a presumption against him. On the nature of ammonium nitrate, he submitted that the substance had been declared a “deemed explosive” by Government of India notification dated Aug 21, 2011 and is regulated under the Ammonium Nitrate Rules 2012 — with neither Suleman Khan nor the appellant holding any licence to deal in it. He further submitted that Section 8 of the NIA Act empowers the agency to investigate all offences connected to the scheduled offence, and that investigation against the remaining named persons is being continued under Section 193(9) of BNSS — no clean chit has been given to anyone.

The bench traversed the full run of Article 22(1) jurisprudence. It reproduced the six-point conclusions from Vihaan Kumar (supra) — including that the burden of proving compliance lies on the investigating agency, that non-compliance vitiates the arrest but does not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet or trial, and that statutory restrictions cannot bar a court from granting bail where a constitutional violation is established. It equally engaged with Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288), which requires grounds to be communicated in writing at least two hours before production before the Magistrate, and with State of Karnataka v. Darshan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702), which held that delay in furnishing grounds of arrest cannot by itself be a valid ground for bail in the absence of demonstrable prejudice.

Applying these principles, the court found that despite the deficiency in the arrest memo, the petitioner had been produced before the Magistrate and before the Special Judge on multiple occasions without ever raising the ground of non-supply of detailed arrest grounds — the objection being pressed only for the first time in the bail application. The bench did not spare the remanding Magistrates either:

“It also indicate that even the Magistrate who allowed the remand was not aware about the compliance required to be ensured at the time of remand, which means even the Judicial Officer is unaware about the law. We failed to understand why a Judicial Officer has not read the provision of BNS and the constitution while discharging the function as a judicial Magistrate. The petitioner accused is a citizen of India and he is entitled for protection not only as an accused but also as a citizen of India.”

On the merits, the bench found prima facie material against the appellant — the recovery of a huge quantity of ammonium nitrate and detonators from Suleman Khan, the financial transactions between the two, the call recordings, and the appellant’s refusal to furnish a voice sample — sufficient to classify the offence as serious. Relying on CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato (2025 INSC 1418), the bench observed that the rights of an individual are always subservient to the nation’s interest in cases involving catastrophic consequence. The D.B. Criminal Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

—

Title: Bharat Kumar Sankhla v. Union of India, Through Special Public Prosecutor

Case No.: D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 178/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:23171-DB]

Counsel for appellant: Mr. Tapendra Sankhla, Mr. Ashok Choudhary

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Special Public Prosecutor (NIA) with Mr. Siddharth Sharma and Mr. Himanshu Choudhary