The Patiala House Court granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case involving recovery of 5 kg heroin, holding that failure to supply written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal.
The Court rejected the State’s contention that the requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest is prospective and applicable only after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra, 2025:INSC:1288. Instead, it held that the mandate applies from the date of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244.
Relying on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Thokcham Shyamjai Singh v. Union of India, 2025
SCC OnLine Del 980, the Court clarified that the obligation to communicate grounds of arrest cannot be diluted and must be complied with in all arrests post-Pankaj Bansal.
On facts, the Court found that only a routine arrest memo containing general reasons was prepared, and no written grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused. It held that such non-compliance violates Articles 21 and 22(1), vitiating the arrest and subsequent remand.
Significantly, the Court held that once the arrest is rendered illegal, the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
Accordingly, the accused was granted bail, with the Court observing that continued custody in violation of constitutional safeguards cannot be sustained.
Appearances:
For the State: Irfan Ahmad, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP
For Applicant/Accused: Sh. Sirhaan Seth, Ld. Counsel
