Ashwani Kumar @ Ashni vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M)
202 Date of Decision:04.11.2026

Ashwani Kumar @ Ashni
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
Sr. No. Particular

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 30.10.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 04.11.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 05.11.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not
judgment and reasons thereof applicable.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Mr. Dilraj Singh Bhinder, Advocate
Ms. Navkiran Bajwa, Advocate,
Mr. Harshal Jaiyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG Punjab.
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , J.
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case vide FIR No.277 dated
16.11.2024, under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station Tanda,
District Hoshiarpur. This is the third petition seeking regular bail. Previous
bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn on 24.02.2026 and
15.09.2026.
2. It is alleged that on 16.11.2024, when police party was
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
patrolling in the area of Lodhi Chak Mor, petitioner took out a glazed

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 2
envelope from his right pocket, dropped it on the ground, on seeing the
police party and tried to flee. He was intercepted on suspicion. The glazed
envelope was picked up and on checking, was found to contain 235 orange
colour loose tablets. FIR No. 277 dated 16.11.2024 was accordingly
registered against the petitioner. As per report of FSL, the tablets contained
Etizolam. Weight of the tablets was 31.2 grams. The quantity recovered is
commercial.
3. The only ground pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is
that at the time of and after his arrest, petitioner was not supplied the
grounds of arrest, thereby depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to
know the basis of his arrest and to avail his legal remedy in accordance with
law. Non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing caused him serious prejudice
and rendered his arrest legally unsustainable. To support his submissions,
learned counsel relies upon Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra
and another, 2025 AIR Supreme Court 5554, Sumit Versus State of Punjab,
2026 Law Finder (P&H)28377 and Amritpal Kaur @ Amrit Kaur Versus
State of Punjab 2026 Law Finder (P&H) 2137 1.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit
of Davinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division
Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and has opposed the prayer for regular bail
arguing that the quantity recovered from conscious possession of the
petitioner i.e. 31.2 grams of Etizolam, was commercial and statutory bar
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was attracted, therefore, petitioner did not
deserve the concession of bail. He, however, does not dispute that grounds
of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner.
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
5. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India reads as under:
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 3
‘22.Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.-(1) 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.’
6. Still, further section 52(1) of the NDPS Act, provides as under:
‘52. Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized.-(l) Any officer
arresting a person under section 41, section 42 section 43 or section
44 shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such
arrest.’
7. The requirement of law to communicate the grounds of arrest to
an accused, is sacrosanct and non-negotiable. Arrest of a person on a
criminal charge curtails his liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and for this reason, it is necessary that the accused
must be given to understand on what grounds he has been arrested. The
requirement of conveying and informing the person arrested of the grounds
of arrest, is not an empty formality but a mandatory constitutional
requirement. If, ground of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the
arrest, it would amount to violation of fundamental rights of the arrestee
guaranteed under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, rendering the arrest
illegal. On failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds
of arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated and custody of the arrested person
rendered illegal. The Courts have therefore, insisted that the police should
always comply with the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India.
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 4
8. In Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra case (supra)
Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking note of various judgments on the same
issue held as under:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the
grounds of arrest is mandatory in offences under all statutes
including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to
the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after
arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated
in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least
two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand
proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and
subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person
will be at liberty to be set free.’
9
. Although, the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of
Maharashtra case (supra) has prospective application, the requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest as enshrined in Article 22 (1) of the
Constitution of India was emphasised by Hon’ble Supreme Court, even
before that in Vihaan Kumar Versus The State of Haryana and another 2025
(5) SCC 799 . The Court therein observed as under:
‘21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds
of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);
b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided
to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient
knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is
imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively
in the language which he understands. The mode and method
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 5
of communication must be such that the object of the
constitutional safeguard is achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on
the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with
the requirements of Article 22(1);
d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of
the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said
Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to
personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article
22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders
passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated.
Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge
sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet
will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under
Article 22(1);
e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial
Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to
ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other
mandatory safeguards has been made; and
f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the
duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused.
That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory
restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions
do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the
violation of Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution is established.’
10. In the case in hand, the police has filed status report, para-8
whereof reads as under:
‘That, in compliance with the aforesaid order, the matter
has been examined from the record of the case. It is
submitted that the investigating Officer did not furnish
the grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of his
arrest, nor were the grounds of arrest separately
communicated to the petitioner in writing at that stage.’
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 6
11. The prosecution does not dispute that the constitutional
requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and statutory
mandate of Section 52(1) of NDPS Act, has been breached in the case in as
much as neither grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioner at the time
of arrest nor were separately communicated to him in writing. The arrest of
the petitioner,in violation of his fundamental rights, thus stands vitiated.
Even though, a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, that would not
validate the illegality and unconstitutionality committed at the time of arrest.
The continued custody of the petitioner in the case stands vitiated.
12. This is the third petition for regular bail. The previous two
petitions were not decided on merits. Considering the gross violation of
petitioner's fundamental rights, the dismissal of first two bail petitions, on
account of withdrawal, will not validate breach of constitutional mandate
under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
13. Since violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is
established, the statutory restriction under Section 37 of NDPS, will not
effect the power of the Court to grant bail.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate subject to the
following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such
person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the
investigating agency.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt,

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 7
directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any
prosecution witness.
3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India
without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial
Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall
furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well
as the learned Trial Court.
4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before
accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the
petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present
correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate
documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the
correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the
acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification
report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is
found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the
prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in
accordance with law.
5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court,
either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such
period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account
Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative
bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of
immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material
particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a
valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance
with law.
6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as
well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in
residential address or mobile number within seven days from
the date of such change.
7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a
similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall
remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted
in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the
REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-57621 of 2026 (O&M) 8
Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid
conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial
proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to
proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the
concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate
coercive process, including warrants of arrest.
15. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken as an expression
of opinion on merits of the case.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
04.11.2026
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No

REEMA SAINI
2026.11.05 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh