ORDER : SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. 1. This petition is filed by accused No. 2 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as `BNSS’) praying to grant bail in crime No. 63/2025 of Gulpete Police Station, Kolar, registered for offence punishable under Sections 61, 103, 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as `BNS’). 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioner – accused No. 2 and learned HCGP for respondent – State. 3. Learned Senior counsel for petitioner – accused No. 2 would contend that the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused. Only information of arrest has been given to the relatives. Furnishing of grounds of arrest is mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 and in the case of Ahmed Mansoor and Ors. Vs. The State, Rep. By, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr., Crl.A. No. 4505/2025 dated 14.10.2025 . Petitioner – accused No. 2 also had sustained injury and it was stated to be grievous injury and that itself indicates that the deceased was also carrying weapon. Injuries of petitioner – accused have not been explained by the Investigating Officer. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by petitioner – accused No. 2 creates a doubt regarding the case of the prosecution. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1976 (4) SCC 394 . The deceased gave provocation to the accused persons when the accused asked him to leave his illicit relationship with accused No. 4. Petitioner is a Five year Law student studying in X Semester. As petitioner sustained injury and is a student, he is entitled for grant of bail and on that point he placed reliance on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raja Gautam Buddha Vs. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 1348/2012 dated 22.03.2012 There is no recovery at the instance of this petitioner except the clothes which are stated to be blood stained. Said blood stains on the clothes of petitioner – accused No. 2 are due to the injury sustained by him. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 1348/2012 dated 22.03.2012 There is no recovery at the instance of this petitioner except the clothes which are stated to be blood stained. Said blood stains on the clothes of petitioner – accused No. 2 are due to the injury sustained by him. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and grant bail to petitioner – accused No. 2. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the offence alleged against petitioner – accused No. 2 is heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. P.M. report would indicate that the deceased had sustained 42 injuries. C.W.2 is the only eye witness to the incident and she is the relative of accused persons. If the petitioner is granted bail there is threat to C.W.2 – eye witness and other prosecution witnesses. The injuries sustained by petitioner – accused No. 2 have been explained in the charge sheet. Petitioner – accused No. 2 himself has stated how he sustained injuries in his voluntary statement. Petitioner – accused No. 2 and other accused conspired to kill the deceased and they came to the spot with deadly weapons. Merely because petitioner – accused No. 2 is a student is not a ground for grant of bail. Petitioner – accused No. 2 has already completed his X semester as he was studying in V year Law course for the academic year 2024-25. Said academic year is already completed. On these grounds he prayed for rejection of the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the materials placed on record. 6. As learned Senior counsel has argued that grounds of arrest have not been furnished, in order to ascertain the same the Court has secured the records from the jurisdictional Court. The Court has perused the said records secured from the jurisdictional Court. 7. In the case of Vihan Kumar (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observes thus: “16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to Vihan Kumar (supra) , in the case of Ahmed Mansoor (supra) has observed as under: “In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.(supra) the facts governing are quite different. It was a case dealing with the cancellation of bail where the charge sheet had been filed and the grounds of detention were served immediately. This Court has, in fact, given its approval to the decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.(supra). Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra), this Court was pleased to hold in para 27 that the object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest should be communicated has been explained by this Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr (supra). Therefore, the law as laid down in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr (supra) has been approved and reiterated in the abovesaid decisions. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the present appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the appellants has not been complied with. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the present appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the appellants has not been complied with. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. However, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court and consequently setting aside the order of arrest and remand, we would only say that liberty is granted to the respondents to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is made out. Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused.” 9. This Court in the case of Owusu Collinus Ghanian Vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No. 9552/2025 disposed of 27.10.2025 : NC 2025 KAC 42422 by referring to Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 INSC 866 , Prabir Purkayashta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 INSC 414 , Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2025 INSC 162 Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported on 2025 INSC 768 , Asish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh, Crl.A. No. 1518/2025 , and V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 INSC 739 , has held as under: “15. The object underlying the provision for grounds of arrest should be indicated to the person arrested has been very succinctly explained in Vihaan Kumar (supra). The information will enable the arrested person to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of his trial. On learning about the grounds for arrest, the person concerned will be in a position to make an application before the appropriate Court for bail, or move the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. For these reasons, it has been provided by the Constitution that, the ground for the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon as possible. 16. It is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence for the purpose of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. For these reasons, it has been provided by the Constitution that, the ground for the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon as possible. 16. It is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence for the purpose of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC Online SC 1702) has held as under: 20. In the present case, the High Court, by the impugned order, enlarged the respondents on bail, primarily relying on a set of factual and legal findings. However, a closer examination of these findings reveals serious infirmities that warranting interference. We shall discuss the same in detail. 20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail. 20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents – accused contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C (now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). This submission, however, is devoid of merit. 20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates 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”. Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that “every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in the remand orders about service of memo of grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest memos were allegedly template-based and not personalised (para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated that they were present at the time of arrest or had signed the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 – 50) that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed, written, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately after arrest was a violation entitling the accused to bail. 20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect 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. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail. 18. In the present case, the arrest memo and remand records clearly reflect that the petitioner was aware of the reasons for his arrest. The petitioner was legally represented on the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. 19. The decisions which have been relied upon by the petitioner are turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail. Even though the arrest memo is in Kannada, it has been served on the petitioner and he has affixed his signature and LTM for having received copy. The arrest of the petitioner has been intimated to his friend and he also has affixed signature on arrest report dated 01.05.2025. The fact that the petitioner immediately approached the Sessions/Special Court seeking bail itself indicate that he was aware of grounds of arrest. The petitioner has affixed his signature on arrest memo and he has been explained in English by the IO regarding grounds of arrest, more so, the petitioner has been caught red handed while possessing contraband/MDMA of commercial quantity.” 10. In order to ascertain whether grounds of arrest have been communicated to the accused, records of the jurisdictional Court requires to be perused. In order to ascertain whether grounds of arrest have been communicated to the accused, records of the jurisdictional Court requires to be perused. Arrest memo dated 23.05.2025 contains grounds of arrest and it bears signature of petitioner – accused No. 2 and witness by name Sri. Mohammad Afsar son of late Mohammad Amanulla. Arrest notice has also been given to petitioner – accused No. 2 and it is dated 23.05.2025 and it bears signature of petitioner – accused No. 2. Intimation of arrest has been given to one Sri. Mohammad Wasim son of late Mohammad Mujamil and it is dated 23.05.2025 and it bears the signature of said Mohammad Wasim. 11 guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court have also been followed and it bears the signature of petitioner – accused No. 2. Petitioner – accused No. 2 came to be arrested on 23.05.2025 at 07.00 am and on the same day he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at 09.00 pm. Records contain the vakalath filed by the petitioner and it is dated 23.05.2025. Considering the above aspects it is clear that petitioner – accused No. 2 has been furnished with grounds of arrest immediately after his arrest and his arrest also was informed to his relative. Petitioner – accused No. 2 has also taken the assistance of an advocate on the date of his arrest and production before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Considering the above aspects the contention of learned Senior counsel that petitioner – accused No. 2 has not been furnished with grounds of arrest does not hold any substance. 11. Records indicate that petitioner – accused No. 2 has also sustained injuries during the incident. Learned jurisdictional Magistrate has noted the same when petitioner – accused No. 2 was produced before him and petitioner – accused No. 2 was referred to the hospital by remanding him to Police custody. Perusal of column No. 17 of the charge sheet, statement of eye witness i.e., C.W.2 and voluntary statement of petitioner – accused No. 2 indicates that petitioner – accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 sustained injuries when they were assaulting the deceased due to the touch of weapons that they were using. Considering the said aspect the prosecution has explained how petitioner – accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 sustained injuries at the time of the incident. Considering the said aspect the prosecution has explained how petitioner – accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 sustained injuries at the time of the incident. Statement of C.W.2 does not indicate that the deceased was carrying any weapon with him and he used the same. 12. Petitioner – accused No. 2 is sister’s son of accused No. 1. Accused No. 4 who is the wife of accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with the deceased. C.W.2 is the aunt (mother’s sister) of accused No. 4. The incident has taken place in the house of C.W.2. C.W.2 is eye witness to the incident. C.W.2 is close relative of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. If accused persons are granted bail, then there are chances of accused persons threatening and winning over C.W.2. 13. Petitioner – accused No. 2 is stated to be a student studying in fifth year in X semester of Law course for the academic year 2024-25. Said academic year is already over. The offence alleged against petitioner – accused No. 2 is a heinous offence punishable with either death of imprisonment for life. If petitioner – accused No. 2 is granted bail, there is threat to eye witness – C.W.2 and other prosecution witnesses. Considering all these aspects petitioner – accused No. 2 has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, petition is dismissed. 14. Send back the records with a copy of this order to the Sessions Court.