SUNDAR RAO vs Union Rep. by The Intelligence Officer
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Case type
- CRL OP
- Decided on
- 17-03-2026
2026:MHC:1100
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and 3430 of 2026
Crl.O.P.No.3329 of 2026
Sundar Rao ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union, Rep. by
The Intelligence Officer,
NCB, Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai – 600 017.
R.R.No.19 of 2023. … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge on bail in C.C.No.230 of 2024 in
R.R.No.19 of 2023 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subburaj
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Crl.O.P.No.4031 of 2026
Akkala Siva Kottaiah ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India
Rep. by Intelligence Officer,
Narcotic Control Bureau,
Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai. … Respondent
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.230
of 2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Crl.O.P.No.4305 of 2026
Abraham Bhatra ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
PEW Guduvancherry Police Station,
Chengalpet District.
(Crime No.55 of 2024) … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.521
of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for EC & NDPS Act at
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Crl.O.P.No.4349 of 2026
Batu Golory ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
PEW Guduvancherry Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.55 of 2024) … Respondent
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.521
of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for EC & NDPS Act at
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Crl.O.P.No.2716 of 2026
Shri Gireesh Juyal ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India
Represented by the Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
No.27. G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.894
of 2024 on the II Additional Court Special Court EC and NDPS Cases at
Chennai pending on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Crl.O.P.No.3430 of 2026
Shanmuganandham ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
NIBCID Kancheepuram Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
Crime No.23 of 2024. … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in
C.C.No.356 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Special Court under (EC)
and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai.
3/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
COMMON ORDER
In all these cases, a common contention raised by the petitioners is that,
the “grounds of arrest” has not been furnished to them. In this regard, the
petitioners relied upon the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India.
(i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799.
(ii) PrabirPurkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 INSC
414.
(iii) KasiredyUpender Reddy Vs. State of Andhrapradesh&Ors reported
in 2025 INSC 768.
(iv) Ahmed Mansoor&Ors Vs. The State Rep. By, Assistant
Commissioner of Police &Anr (Criminal Appeal No.4505 of 2025 [@ SLP
(Crl.] No.198 of 2025 dated 14.10.2025)
(v) Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India , reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576.
2. For the purpose of effective adjudication upon the legal defence raised
by the petitioners, it is necessary to examine the basic factual aspects of each
bail application, namely whether the present application is the first or
4/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
subsequent one, the date of remand, the fate of the earlier applications and other
relevant factors. The said particulars are, therefore, tabulated hereunder:-
Sl.
No
Case
Number/
Offences and
Contraband quantity
Number of previous
Date of
C.C.No/
Crime No
bail applications
arrest
Name of
the accused
1. Crl.O.P.
No.3329 of
C.C.No.230
Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii) (c), 25, 27A, 28 and
3 previous bail
applications were
dismissed by this Court
23.06.2023
of 2024 in
R.R.No.19
2025
Sundar Rao
29 of NDPS Act
Commercial Quantity of
of 2023
on 23.07.2024,
26.04.2024 and
160 kgs of Ganja
25.06.2024
2. Crl.O.P.
No.4031 of
2026Akkala
C.C.No.230
Section 8(c) r/w Sections
20(b) (ii) (c), 25, 27A, 28
1 previous application
14.06.2023
of 2024 in
R.R.No.19
was dismissed by this
and 29 (1) of NDPS Act,
Court on 28.11.2025
Siva
Kottaiah
of 2023
1985
Commercial Quantity of
160 kgs of Ganja
3. Crl.O.P.
No.4305 of
C.C.No.521
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c)
4 previous applications
19.02.2024
of 2024 in
and 29(1) of NDPS Act.
Commercial Quantity of
were dismissed by this
2026
Abraham
Crime
No.55 of
Court on 23.09.2024,
19.11.2024, 02.01.2025
104 kgs of Ganja
Bhatra
2024
and 03.11.2025
4. Crl.O.P.
No.4349 of
C.C.No.521
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c)
3 previous bail
applications were
dismissed by this Court
19.02.2024
of 2024 in
and 29(1) of NDPS Act.
Commercial Quantity of
2026
Batu Golory
Crime
No.55 of
64 kgs of Ganja
on 13.11.2024,
17.06.2025 and
2024
24.07.2025
5. Crl.O.P.No.
C.C.No.894
Sections 8(c), 22(c),
No previous bail
application before this
24.04.2024
2716 of
of 2024
23(c), 28 and 29 of
NDPS Act r/w provision
2026
Shri Grieesh
Court
of the Customs Act,
Juyal
1962.
Commercial Quantity of
3.559 kgs of Heroin
6. Crl.O.P.No.
C.C.No.356
Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii) (c), 25 and 29(1) of
No previous bail
application before this
17.10.2024
3430 of
of 2025 in
2026
Shanmugan
Crime
No.23 of
NDPS Act.
Commercial Quantity of
Court
andham
2024
64 kgs of Ganja
5/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
3. On a perusal of the above tabular statement, it is amply clear that the
plea regarding non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest was not raised either at
the time of arrest or immediately thereafter. According to the said tabular
statement, the petitioners raised the said plea only after a considerable lapse of
time, ranging from a minimum period of one year to a maximum period of four
years. Except Sl.Nos.5 and 6, in other matter the defence of grounds of arrest
were not taken in the previous bail applications. It is also seen that the
petitioners have undergone incarceration for varying periods. Except, capturing
the above fact, this Court is not inclined to go into the veracity of the aforesaid
factual aspects, since the same have been referred to only for the limited
purpose of indicating the conduct of the parties.
4. Admittedly, in all these cases, “the grounds of arrest” were not
furnished to the petitioners and they were served only with the “arrest memo”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judgement has clearly
distinguished between the “grounds of arrest” and the “arrest memo”, and has
held that both cannot be equated. In such circumstances, this Court proceeds to
consider the effect of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest to the case in hand,
in the above factual matrix.
6/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in RajrishiBindawat Vs. State of
Maharashtra , reported in 2024 SCC OnLineBom 3660 . The said judgement
was carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah
Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500. According to the
judgement of Bombay High Court in RajrishiBindawat’s case (cited supra),
when the grounds of arrest were within the knowledge of the petitioners by their
conduct, they cannot be permitted to take advantage of the plea that the “written
grounds of arrest” were not given to them. In the above judgement, the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court has observed that an exception can be made
in such circumstances. The High Court held that the accused therein were fully
aware of their consequences of their gruesome act committed by them against
the victims, and therefore, were not entitled to claim the benefit flowing from
the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. The aforesaid finding of the Bombay High Court was carried in appeal
in SLP (Crl.) No.17132 of 2024 Mihir Rajesh’s case (cited supra). By the daily
order dated 13.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, prima facie,
it did not find any error in the judgement of the Division Bench. However, the
appeal was entertained for the limited purpose of considering the legal position
7/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
involved in the matter. In order to substantiate the above discussion, it would be
appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, which reads as follows: -
5. The remand proceedings saw the appellant being
produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class with initial
police custody extending subsequently into judicial custody; a
course contested on the grounds that the grounds of arrest were
not furnished in writing as mandated by Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS 2023 equivalent to
Section 50 CrPC.
6. The appellant's challenge against the legality of arrest
was ultimately considered by the High Court of Bombay in Mihir
Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra³ wherein, vide judgment dated
25-11-2024³, the High Court of Bombay, notwithstanding the
acknowledgment of this procedural lapse, upheld the validity of
arrest due to the appellant's conscious awareness of the gravity of
the offence, supported by substantial evidence and the appellant's
evasion of arrest, thereby justifying custody despite the missing
written grounds. The appellant approached this Court challenging
the judgment of the Bombay High Court contending that grounds of
arrest as mandated under Section 47 of BNSS 2023 were not
informed to him in writing.
7. This Court, while considering the special leave petition
recorded that the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition on
its merits and issued notice only to the extent of considering the
8/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
question of law/legal position …..”
As per the above observation, it is amply clear that when the accused were fully
aware of the consequences of their gruesome conduct, they cannot be allowed to
take advantage of the procedural lapse, if any, on the part of the Investigating
Agency.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in various judgements relied
upon by the petitioners, more particularly in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 and Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of
India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, has held the constitutional safeguard
guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and
stands on a higher footing akin to the protection envisaged under Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India.
8. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to the judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has delineated the circumstances under which the delay in furnishing the
grounds of arrest, by itself would not constitute a valid ground for grant of
relief. For ready reference, the relevant portion the judgement in Sri Darshan’s
case (cited supra), is extracted hereunder: -
20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus
mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the
9/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
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 Haryana²², 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 KasireddyUpender Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh²³, 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
10/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
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
India²⁴ and PrabirPurkayastha 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.
9. Though in Sri Darshan’s case (cited supra), it was contended that there
was delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest and that the accused was entitled to
raise a defence on the ground of such non-furnishing, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the accused must necessarily demonstrate prejudice suffered
by them due to such lapse. It was further observed that, in cases involving
procedural lapses, the consistent judicial approach is the test of prejudice. Upon
consideration of the arrest memo and the remand records, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court found that no material had been placed on record to establish that any
prejudice was occasioned on account of the alleged procedural lapse. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking note of the conduct and swift reaction of
the accused in filing bail application shortly after arrest, held that mere non-
furnishing of the grounds of arrest in the absence of demonstrable prejudice,
would not ipso facto render the custody illegal nor would it, by itself, entitle the
accused to the grant of bail.
11/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
10. In order to analyse whether any prejudice has been caused to the
petitioners, it is necessary to examine the basis on which the requirement to
furnish the grounds of arrest in writing was evolved. In other words, it is
relevant to advert to the development of “grounds of arrest” jurisprudence. As
held in Pankaj Bansal’s case (cited supra), the underlying object is that, upon
being made aware of the grounds of arrest, the arrested person would be in a
position to effectively place his defence before the Court, including the
contention that there are no valid grounds for remand and to seek appropriate
relief, including bail.
11. In the present case, the petitioners are involved in offences under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act involving commercial
quantity. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for grant of
bail, that the Court must be satisfied, after affording an opportunity to the Public
Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that,
inasmuch as the petitioners were not furnished with the “grounds of arrest”, they
12/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
were not in a position to effectively defend themselves before the learned
Remand Judge or to seek bail. It is further submitted that the judgment in
Pankaj Bansal’s case (cited supra), dated 03.10.2023, has subsequently been
clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Directorate
of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682, wherein, in paragraph
No.8, it has been observed that the ratio laid down in Pankaj Bansal’s case
would operate prospectively.
13. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in PrabirPurkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in
MANU/SC/0435/2024, wherein, in paragraph No.19, it has been emphatically
held that informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a salutary and
sacrosanct safeguard, as such information constitutes the only effective means
enabling the arrested person to consult his Advocate, oppose police custody
remand and seek bail.
14. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
the respondents, placing reliance upon the judgments in Sri Darshan’s case
(cited supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra), would contend that by
the accused’s grave conduct, the alleged non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest
would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners, inasmuch as their conduct of
13/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
transporting of banned article would indicate that they were fully aware of the
basis of their arrest. It is further contended that, in view of apprehension raised
in various judgements about the furnishing of grounds of arrest and it’s time,
and the judgement in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra) has held that the
requirement regarding mandatory compliance in furnishing the grounds of arrest
would apply only prospectively from the date of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh
Shah’s case (cited supra) and, since all these petitioners were arrested prior
thereto, they will not derive any advantage on the ground of non-furnishing of
the grounds of arrest.
15. In Vihaan Kumar’s case (cited supra), while reiterating the principles
laid down in Pankaj Bansal’s case (cited supra) and PrabirPurkayastha’s case
(cited supra), observed that it may not be practicable in certain situations to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, and the same would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. After adverting to the jurisprudence
relating to the furnishing of grounds of arrest as discussed in various earlier
judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited
supra), at paragraph No.38, has observed as follows:
“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
14/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
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. ”
Therefore, the entire jurisprudence relating to the furnishing of the grounds of
arrest is founded on the salutary object of enabling the arrested person to
understand the basis of his arrest and to engage legal counsel for the purpose of
challenging the arrest, opposing remand or seeking bail.
16. It is to be noted that the mode and manner of giving grounds of arrest
have not been statutorily prescribed. In this regard, it would be appropriate to
extract the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra), which reads as follows:-
“58 . It is by now settled that if the grounds of arrest are not
furnished to the arrestee in writing, this non-compliance will result
in breach of the constitutional and statutory safeguards hence
rendering the arrest and remand illegal and the person will be
entitled to be set at liberty. The statute is silent with regard to the
mode, nature or the time and stage at which the grounds of arrest
has to be communicated. Article 22 says "as soon as may be"
which would obviously not mean prior to arrest but can be on
arrest or thereafter. The indication is as early as it can be
15/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
conveyed. There may be situations wherein it may not be
practically possible to supply such grounds of arrest to the
arrested person at the time of his arrest or immediately.
59. It may so happen that in the presence of a police officer a
cognizable offence is being committed and the factual matrix
presents a tangible and imminent risk of the suspect absconding or
committing further offence(s). For instance, in a case involving a
murder being committed in front of a police officer, it may not be
possible for the officer to provide the grounds of arrest in writing
before the arrest or forthwith on the arrest to the accused. A rigid
insistence upon informing of written ground(s) of arrest before or
at the time of effecting the arrest or immediately thereafter may
result into police officer not being able to discharge their duty
and responsibility efficiently and effectively.
60. The constitutional safeguards, valuable as they are,
cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to allow it to
metamorphose into a procedural impediment that handicaps the
law enforcing agencies in due lawful discharge of their duties.
Therefore, a balance between compliance of the constitutional as
also the statutorily mandated safeguards on the one hand vis-à-
vis the effective discharge of lawful statutory law enforcement
duties and responsibilities cast upon the State agencies must be
struck.”
17. In paragraph No.62 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has held that, wherever the Police are already in possession of
16/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for effecting arrest, the written
grounds of arrest ought to be furnished to the accused. However, in cases where
the arrest is effected in the course of the commission of the offence itself, that is,
in a situation of flagrante delicto, the communication of the grounds of arrest in
writing may not be practicable. Even in such circumstances, it has been
observed that the grounds of arrest may be furnished at a later point of time, but
sufficiently in advance, at least two hours prior to the production of the arrested
person before the learned Magistrate.
18. After an elaborate discussion on the various facets of the
jurisprudence relating to the furnishing of grounds of arrest, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in paragraph No.68 of Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra),
has also adverted to the absence of any consistent or binding requirement
mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest in all cases and has
ultimately held as follows: -
“68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or
binding requirement mandating written communication of the
grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our
view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights
provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the
Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on
obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of
17/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline
therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall
govern arrests henceforth.”
19. According to the above observations, the requirement regarding the
mandatory furnishing of the grounds of arrest and the procedure stipulated in the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited
supra) would govern arrests effected henceforth, namely, from the date of the
said judgment, i.e., 06.11.2025. Therefore, in cases where the offence is
committed in the presence of the Police Officials, the question of furnishing the
grounds of arrest in the manner stipulated in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited
supra) would arise only in respect of arrests effected subsequent to the
judgement of Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra) date. In the case in hand,
as stated supra, all the arrests were effected prior to the date of the said
judgment.
20. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law
declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding and constitutes the law of the
land. It is further submitted that when the Pankaj Bansal’s case (cited supra),
had elaborately held on the point of the grounds of arrest, the same would be
18/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
binding on a subsequent co-equal Bench. On that basis, it is contended that the
judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra) would have no application
in the case in hand.
21. A careful reading of the observations made in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s
case (cited supra) would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of
the earlier judgments including Pankaj Bansal’s case (cited supra), on the
subject and has only explained the practical difficulties faced by the
prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also prescribed a procedural
framework to be followed prospectively, which would take effect from the date
of the said judgment.
22. In all the above cases, according to the prosecution, on the basis of
secret information, the accused were intercepted and searched, and during such
search, the commission of the offence came to light and thereafter they effected
the arrest. Therefore, while analysing the petitioners’ conduct as per the
observations made by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
RajrishiBindawat’s case (cited supra), which were subsequently approved by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra).
The conduct of the accused in transporting ganja is evident that, their conduct
would inevitably result in their arrest. According to the prosecution, the
petitioners were found by their very conduct of transporting commercial
quantity of narcotic substance, they were conscious of it’s consequences that
19/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
would ensue. Thus, in view of the detailed discussion made above, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot seek to rely upon the plea
regarding non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest as a basis to claim bail.
23. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
placed reliance upon an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court
( Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2025) , wherein, upon consideration of a similar issue, it
was held that the petitioners therein were entitled to be enlarged on bail on the
ground that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished. In this regard, reliance
was placed on the order of the learned Single Judge in Crl.O.P.No.17119 of
2025 (Saikam Kiran Kumar Vs. Union of India) dated 30.01.2026. However, it
is seen that the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mihir
Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra), rendered on 06.11.2025, had not been brought
to the notice of the learned Single Judge. When there is a Hon’ble Supreme
Court judgement on the same subject, I am bound to follow the same.
24. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further
contend that the decision in Sri Darshan’s case (cited supra) would not apply to
the present bail matters, as the said case arose out of proceedings for
cancellation of bail. In this connection, reliance was also placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ahmed Mansoor& Others
20/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
Vs. State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police in SLP (Crl.)
No.198 of 2025, which arose from a judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court. On a careful consideration of the factual matrix in Ahmed Mansoor’s
case (cited supra), it is seen that the accused therein had challenged his arrest
immediately on 23.05.2024 on the ground that non-furnishing of the grounds of
arrest and demonstrated his prejudice in availing legal assistance.
25. In one of the case in hand, qua Crl.O.P.No.2716 of 2026, the very
conduct of the petitioner, from whose digestive tract 29 capsules of narcotic
substance were recovered, is more than sufficient to demonstrate his conscious
concealment of the contraband would result in arrest. Further, the petitioner did
not raise any plea regarding non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest before the
learned Special Court and has chosen to raise the said contention only by filing
the present petition before this Court in January 2026.
26. In Crl.O.P.No.3480 of 2026, though a co-accused has been enlarged
on bail, the petitioner cannot seek parity, as the present petitioner is alleged to
be the principal offender and a recovery of 200 kgs of ganja was effected from
him alone, and his very alleged act and conduct of transporting such huge
quantity of contraband would, by itself, be sufficient to infer that the petitioner
was aware of the basis of his arrest. It is pertinent to mention that, the petitioner
21/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
did not raise any plea regarding non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest before
the learned Special Court and has taken such a plea only by filing the present
petition before this Court in February 2026.
27. In addition to the above aspect, the jurisprudence relating to the
furnishing of written grounds of arrest, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Pankaj Bansal’s case (cited supra), pronounced on
03.10.2023, is also required to be taken note of. In the light of the said
judgment, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.3329 of 2025 and Crl.O.P.No.4031 of
2026 cannot derive any benefit therefrom, inasmuch as their arrests had been
effected prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Pankaj Bansal’s case
(cited supra).
28. In the above case also, as in the other connected cases referred to
above, the plea regarding non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest was not raised
in the first instance but was taken only in the subsequent bail applications. This
clearly indicates that, at the time of filing the initial bail applications, the
petitioners did not suffer any impediment or difficulty in effectively defending
their case.
22/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
29. Apart from the above, in all the cases in hand, the arrests were
effected prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh
Shah’s case (cited supra). Therefore, the petitioners cannot take advantage of
the plea regarding non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in all these cases,
which are in the nature of flagrante delicto, and such requirement was made
applicable only with effect from 06.11.2025. Hence, the grounds urged by the
petitioners for grant of bail are liable to be rejected.
30. In view of the foregoing detailed discussion, and also in the absence
of any material to satisfy the rigour of Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the Act, this
Court is constrained to dismiss these petitions as the petitioners did not make
out any case for bail. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand
dismissed.
17.03.2026
kv
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of
this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this
Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when
uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also
have a QR code.
23/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
To:
1.The II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act,
Chennai.
2. The II Additional Special Court for EC & NDPS Act at Chennai.
3. The Special Court under (EC) and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai.
4.The Intelligence Officer,
NCB, Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai – 600 017.
5. The Intelligence Officer,
Union of India
Narcotic Control Bureau,
Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai.
6. The Inspector of Police,
PEW Guduvancherry Police Station,
Chengalpet District.
7. The Inspector of Police,
PEW Guduvancherry Police Station,
Chennai.
8. The Intelligence Officer,
Union of India
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
No.27. G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
9. The Inspector of Police,
NIBCID Kancheepuram Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
10.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
24/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and
3430 of 2026
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
Crl.O.P.Nos.3329, 4031, 4305,
4349, 2716 and 3430 of 2026
17.03.2026
25/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 02:26:06 pm )