1 18.ba.980.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.980 OF 2026 Shankarlal Jangaldas Mangtani ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.S. Kanwale, Advocate for the applicant. Shri N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant no.1/State. Ms Kajal A. Bhagat, Advocate for non-applicant no.2 (appointed). CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 03.09.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.206 of 2026 registered with Buldhana city Police Station, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 75(1)(i), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 4(2), 6, 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 3. The primary ground raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the grounds of arrest furnished by the investigating officer were not communicated to the applicant in a language known to him. He submits that the applicant belongs to the Sindhi community and has no knowledge of the Marathi language. Since the grounds of arrest were not furnished to him in a language he understood, the learned Counsel submits that the arrest is rendered illegal and stands vitiated. 2026:BHC-NAG:11824 2 18.ba.980.2026.odt 4. The second ground raised by the applicant is that, his fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated, as he was not informed, at the time of his remand that he had the right to engage a Counsel, which prevented him from getting legal assistance at early stage. He relies on Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500 and Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 381. Relying upon the said decisions, he submits that it was incumbent upon the part of the Public Prosecutor as well as the Magistrate to ensure that the applicant was made aware at the earliest stage of his right to legal representation. However, by not following such procedure, he submits that the fundamental right guaranteed under article 22 has been infringed. 5. He further relies upon Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and submits that he was denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner. He states that when he was produced before the Learned Magistrate, he was neither represented by a counsel nor made aware of his aforesaid rights. 6. Therefore, he submits that his personal liberty has been infringed. He contends that both the aforesaid grounds directly relate to his fundamental right to personal liberty and constitute its gross violation, which entitles him to be released on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant had applied for bail thrice before the Trial Court, and the 3 18.ba.980.2026.odt aforesaid grounds were never raised at any stage. He further submits that, on the facts of the case, it is undisputed that the applicant was served with the grounds of arrest. 8. He further submits that the grounds of arrest were not only served upon the applicant, but were also communicated to his grandson. Additionally, he states that the entire bail procedure was thoroughly explained to the applicant. Under these circumstances, he has drawn my attention to the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS on 23.03.2026 to the grandson. 9. He further submits that the aforesaid ground has been raised as an afterthought. As regards the applicant's claim that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him in a language known to him, he submits that the said contention is misconceived. Further it is submitted that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the fact that he has studied in Marathi-medium school. Furthermore, he has placed on record an application submitted by the applicant to the Superintendent of Police, which is written in Marathi language. 10. He further submits that since the applicant has studied in a Marathi-medium school, he has attempted to mislead this Court by raising a false ground solely to obtain a bail order. 11. As regards to the second ground regarding the engagement of a counsel, he submits that the investigating officer had already informed the applicant 4 18.ba.980.2026.odt of his legal rights. He further submits that the applicant is a wealthy person, therefore there is no question of granting him the legal aid facility.Legal aid is provided to those who cannot afford an advocate. 12. However, since the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the applicant, it was for him to decide whether he want to engage a counsel or not. If he chose not to engage a counsel, no fault can be attributed either to the Public Prosecutor or the Magistrate. He further submits that such a ground cannot be raised at a belated stage. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi alias Bitti alias Bittu. 13. I have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, I shall deal with the first ground raised by the applicant, i.e. whether the grounds of arrest were furnished to the applicant in a language known to him. It is undisputed that the grounds of arrest were furnished to the applicant in the Marathi language. 14. As the reliance placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (supra), specific reference was made to paragraphs 37 to 44 and 53 to 55, which reads as under : “37. The mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is unambiguous and clear in nature, it provides that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as they can be. It further provides that the arrested person has the right to defend 5 18.ba.980.2026.odt himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This constitutional mandate has been effectuated by the legislature in Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) which provides that an arrested person shall be forthwith communicated with the grounds of his arrest. 38. The objective enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India for furnishing grounds of arrest stems from the fundamental principle of providing opportunity to a person to allow him to defend himself from the accusations that are levelled against him leading to his arrest. The salutary purpose of informing the grounds of arrest is to enable the person to understand the basis of his arrest and engage legal counsel to challenge his arrest, remand or seek bail and/or avail of any other remedy as may be available to him/her under law. 39. It is pertinent to note that the arrested person must be given early access to legal assistance to enable him to defend himself and oppose the remand. The early access to legal counsel becomes a quintessential object to ensure that the personal liberty of the arrested person is protected. This Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India and Others 6 while emphasizing on the need of pre-litigation assistance has directed that the “Guidelines on Early Access to Justice at Pre- arrest, Arrest and Remand Stage Framework” as framed by the National Legal Services Authority, are to be diligently pursued. 40. The guidelines provide for legal assistance to the arrested person at the stage before remand. The remand advocate shall interact with the arrestee with the objective to inform him about the allegations against 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3031 him and the grounds being put by the prosecution for seeking remand. The guidelines also provide for making available the translated copy of 6 18.ba.980.2026.odt documents to the arrested person in the language he/she understands. 41. The purpose of securing legal assistance before remand is not merely symbolic, but it is to ensure that the accused is afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the prayer for police custody and to place before the magistrate any circumstances that may warrant refusal or limitation of such custody. If the accused is not represented through a Counsel, he/she should be made aware that he/she is entitled for legal aid. As far as possible, it shall be ensured that every accused person is represented by an advocate, if he is not able to avail such assistance, he should be given free legal aid. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 381 held that an accused who is not represented by an advocate is entitled for free legal aid at all material stages starting from remand. 42 This statutory safeguard of legal assistance stands also reinforced by Section 38 of the BNSS 2023, which confers upon an arrested person the right to 7 (2025) 2 SCC 381 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3580 meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, albeit not throughout its course. The object of this provision is to ensure meaningful access to legal assistance at the earliest stage, so that the advocate, once informed, may effectively exercise the rights available in law, including representation during remand proceedings and invocation of the right to seek bail. 43. Section 167 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 187 of BNSS 2023) while dealing with remand provides for a positive mandate on the police officer to forward the accused to the magistrate before expiry of such period as fixed under Section 57 CrPC 1973 (now Section 58 of BNSS 2023) when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. It further mandates that 7 18.ba.980.2026.odt the magistrate to not authorize the detention of accused unless he is physically produced before him. The purpose of this provision mandating the production of accused before magistrate for exercise of the power of remanding him to custody under this section is with the dual purpose. First, ensuring physical presence of the accused and second to afford him an opportunity to be heard. The intent of this provision is not merely to be heard at the stage of remand but to be represented by the counsel of his choice. Thereafter, the duty is cast upon the magistrate to apply his judicial mind to the material produced before him, hear the accused or the counsel representing him to determine whether the accused should be remanded to police custody or should be detained at all within the parameters prescribed in Section 167 of CrPC 1973 (Section 187 of BNSS 2023). The magistrate is not acting as a post office simply putting a stamp of approval to the remand papers as presented before him. In Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others8 this Court held that it is obligatory on the part of the magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand. 44. These above discussed principles embody the manifestation of the constitutional safeguard sought to be achieved in Article 22 of the Constitution of India which is that the arrested person must be well equipped with the information not only about his arrest but the reasons and grounds thereof prior to his production before the magistrate so as to enable him to effectively defend himself and oppose the police and judicial custody and even press for bail. The obligation to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee is thus, not just a mere procedural formality, instead it flows from the fundamental right of personal liberty which sets the further course for protection from the oppressive restrictions imposed upon the free 8 18.ba.980.2026.odt movement in the society of an arrestee during remand. ... 53. The mode of communicating the grounds of arrest must be such that it effectively serves the intended purpose as envisioned under the Constitution of India which is to enable the arrested person to get legal counsel, oppose the remand and effectively defend himself by exercising his rights and safeguards as provided in law. The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands. The mode of communication ought to be such that it must achieve the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguard. The objective of the constitutional mandate would not be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the arrested person, such an approach would be antithesis to the purpose of Article 22(1). 54. There is no harm in providing the grounds of arrest in writing in the language the arrestee understands, this approach would not only fulfil the true intent of the constitutional mandate but will also be beneficial for the investigating agency to prove that the grounds of arrest were informed to the arrestee when a challenge is made to the arrest on the plea of non- furnishing of the grounds of arrest. 55. This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the intended objective of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands.” 9 18.ba.980.2026.odt 15. Upon perusal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court's observations in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), it is undisputed that the constitutional safeguard guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India are required to be protected and enforced in letter and spirit. Furthermore, the aforesaid decision revolves around that the accused person shall receive an opportunity to fefend himself by providing legal assistance at the earliest stage. 16. The judgment specifically addresses the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in a language known to the accused person. The said principle has been laid down in the concluding section of the judgment i.e. particularly in paragraph 53, which has been as reproduced herein above. 17. From the observations in paragraph 53, it is crystal clear that the mode of communication must be such that it achieves the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguards enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. There can be no two opinions with regards to these observations. 18. However, insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, the material placed on record indicates that the aforesaid ground has been raised only as as afterthought and to secure a favorable order. The documents produced by the learned APP show that the applicant has previously submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Buldhana, which bears the signature of the applicant dated 17.03.2026. 10 18.ba.980.2026.odt Significantly, the said application was written in the Marathi language and was tendered by the applicant himself. 19. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the applicant does not know the Marathi language. Furthermore, he studied in a Marathi-medium school and has been residing in Maharashtra since his childhood. In my opinion, the applicant has attempted to mislead this Court and attempted to obtain a favorable order by raising an untenable ground. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands. 20. As regards the second ground pertaining to the engagement of a counsel it is undisputed that the applicant was served with a notice under Section 47 of the BNSS. Whereas, the applicant does not dispute the service of the said notice. 21. It is further to be noted that even the notice was given under section 48 of the BNSS was also served upon the grandson of the applicant. Wherein, it is specifically stated that the procedure for obtaining the bail has been informed to the grandson of the applicant. 22. Further it is to be noted that the applicant did not raise this ground at any earlier stage, despite having preferred three bail applications before the Trial Court. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions the relevant chronology of events is that; 23. The applicant was arrested on March 20, 2026, at 14:57 hours, he was served with the grounds of arrest 11 18.ba.980.2026.odt immediately. Furthermore, approximately one hour and forty-five minutes after his arrest, he was produced before the Magistrate, wherein the Investigating Officer sought his remand to magisterial custody. In the meantime, the applicant’s grandson had been duly informed about the procedure for obtaining bail, thereby enabling him to take necessary steps for arranging the legal assistance. 24. In my opinion, the essential purpose of serving notice under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS has been fulfilled. The objective of both provisions are reflected in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), which holds that an accused is entitled to access to legal assistance at the earliest stage. It is undisputed that the applicant was arrested on 20.03.2026 at 14:57 hours thereafter he was produced before the Magistrate within 1 hour 45 minutes and the Investigating Officer sought Magistrate Custody Remand (‘MCR’) and accordingly he was remanded to MCR. Therefore, even otherwise no prejudice is caused. 25. Under such circumstances it is very difficult to accept the contention of the applicant that he was not made aware of his right to the legal assistance. The subsequent conduct of the applicant is also significant. Despite having preferred three bail applications before raising the present ground in fourth application, there is not even a whisper in any of the earlier applications that the applicant has been denied an opportunity to engage a counsel or that he had not been made aware of his right to legal assistance. Since, the present contention has been raised at an afterthought, therefore, it is 12 18.ba.980.2026.odt rejected. 26. It would useful to refer to the Supreme Court's observations in State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi, specifically paragraphs 11 and 12, which has been reproduced as under : “11. We find that the respondent is not entitled for bail,both on merits and on the grounds discussed by both the Courts. There is a fundamental difference between nonservice of grounds of arrest and non- furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second category, one has to see the prejudice caused to the accused. In the facts of the instant case, it is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. Hence, the case of the respondent falls within the second category discussed above. The respondent has also not taken the said plea at the earliest point of time, having done so only in her 4th Bail Application before the Trial Court. 12. With respect to the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that there is no waiver of the right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the stage at which a plea touching upon fundamental rights is raised would not matter, we would only clarify that when an accused person files a bail application, the stage might become irrelevant. However, when the accused person warranted a finding on merits on the earlier occasions, it is not open for him/her to go back and raise the plea on the issue pertaining to the grounds of arrest thereafter.” 27. From the Supreme Court's observations, it is clear that while the stage at which a plea regarding a fundamental right is raised may generally not matter, , 13 18.ba.980.2026.odt an accused person who has already sought bail on the merits on earlier occasions cannot later go back and raise a new plea concerning the grounds of arrest. 28. Therefore, the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has held that such technical grounds must be raised at the earliest opportunity possible to strike a balance between the rights of the accused person and in the interest of justice. 29. Furthermore, the applicant has preferred his first application on 24.03.2026, immediately after being remanded to magisterial custody. Notably, the applicant was not remanded to police custody rather he was directly remanded to the Magisterial custody at the request of the investigating officer. Thereafter immediately he has engaged Advocate and filed a bail application. Therefore, even in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 41 as under : “41. The purpose of securing legal assistance before remand is not merely symbolic, but it is to ensure that the accused is afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the prayer for police custody and to place before the magistrate any circumstances that may warrant refusal or limitation of such custody...” 30. Under these circumstances, the applicant has neither demonstrated any prejudice caused to him nor has he established infringement of his fundamental rights or constitutional right. 14 18.ba.980.2026.odt 31. Therefore, in my opinion, neither of the grounds raised by the applicant are made out and therefore, the application is rejected. 32. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 19:40:01