Tirupati Vilas Podalwar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Tirupati Vilas Podalwar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2024, decided on 21 August 2025, dismissed an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the rejection of bail in a case involving allegations of sexual assault against a minor. The appellant had been arrested on 7 July 2023 in connection with offences under Sections 323, 376(1), 376(d), 354(d), 363 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Special Judge (POCSO), Chandrapur, had rejected his bail application on 24 September 2024. Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the investigation had been completed, the charge-sheet had been filed, his continued incarceration was unnecessary and the trial was likely to take considerable time.
The prosecution opposed bail, relying upon the statement of the minor victim and the medical and circumstantial evidence collected during investigation. According to the prosecution, the victim, aged approximately 17 years, was taken to a forest area and subjected to forcible sexual assault. The High Court examined the medical examination record, which disclosed abrasions on the victim’s right knee, bleeding and a fresh hymenal tear. The Court also referred to the recovery of a broken shirt button from the scene, the missing button on the appellant’s shirt and the discovery of obscene videos in a seized mobile phone. These circumstances, considered together with the victim’s statement, were held sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the limited purpose of deciding bail. The Court did not determine the appellant’s guilt at trial.
A further argument was raised for the first time in the appellant’s written submissions that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him, allegedly violating Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, and Vihan Kumar Vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799. The High Court examined the constitutional requirement that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest and the distinction between general reasons for arrest and the specific grounds justifying the arrest of an individual. It also considered Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, and the mandatory character of the safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(1).
The High Court further considered the subsequent Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka Vs Sri Darshan Etc., Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528–3534 of 2025, decided on 14 August 2025. As discussed in the judgment, the Supreme Court had emphasised that the constitutional and statutory obligation to communicate grounds of arrest does not invariably prescribe a particular form of communication and that substantial compliance may be sufficient, depending on the circumstances. The High Court observed that the appellant had been legally represented and had pursued bail proceedings, while the record disclosed that his brother-in-law had been informed of his arrest through written notice. The appellant had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the alleged non-communication of grounds of arrest.
The Court attached importance to the fact that the objection concerning non-communication of arrest grounds had not been raised at the time of the appellant’s first remand, in his original bail application or in the memorandum of appeal. It surfaced only during the submissions before the High Court. The Court also recorded that the question concerning the retrospective application of Pankaj Bansal had been referred to a larger Bench in the Mihir Shaha matter. In these circumstances, the High Court declined to accept the belated procedural objection as a ground for release. Considering the gravity of the alleged offences, the medical and circumstantial evidence and the prima facie case against the appellant, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal and maintained the refusal of bail.
Cases Discussed:
1. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs Union of India & Ors. — (1981) 2 SCC 427 (Supreme Court). Referred to in the discussion of effective communication of the grounds of arrest and the requirement that an arrested person understand the basic facts constituting those grounds.
2. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs Union of India — (2023) 12 SCC 1 (Supreme Court). Discussed in the context of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the communication of grounds of arrest.
3. V. Senthil Balaji Vs State — (2024) 3 SCC 51 (Supreme Court). Referred to concerning the requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest.
4. Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India & Ors. — (2024) 7 SCC 576 (Supreme Court). Relied upon by the appellant concerning the obligation to communicate grounds of arrest. The High Court distinguished the circumstances in which the challenge had been raised.
5. Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) — (2024) 8 SCC 254 (Supreme Court). Discussed regarding the distinction between reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest, and the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1).
6. Vihan Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — (2025) 5 SCC 799 (Supreme Court). Considered concerning mandatory communication of arrest grounds, the constitutional consequences of non-compliance and the burden of establishing compliance.
7. Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — 2025 INSC 768 (Supreme Court). Referred to in the discussion of communication of arrest grounds and compliance where arrest is made pursuant to a warrant.
8. State of Karnataka Vs Sri Darshan Etc. — Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528–3534 of 2025, decided on 14/08/2025 (Supreme Court). Applied in considering substantial compliance with arrest safeguards, the form of communication and the relevance of demonstrable prejudice.
9. Mihir Shaha matter — Supreme Court; complete case citation not supplied in the judgment. Mentioned regarding the reference of the question of retrospective application of Pankaj Bansal to a larger Bench. The judgment does not supply sufficient particulars to identify the reference conclusively.
