Brijesh Kothia vs State Nct Of Delhi

$~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 439/2026
BRIJESH KOTHIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Mr. Naveen
Panwar, Ms. Kajol Garg and Mr.
Mohd. Yasir, Advocates.
versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP for the
State with Ms. Samidhi Dobhal, Mr.
Krishna M. Chandel, Mr. Hritwik
Maurya, Mr. Utkarsh Singh and Mr.
Apoorv Paliya, Advocates.
SI Dinesh Kumar, P.S.: Special Cell.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Can a weighty constitutional safeguard be diluted to an
optional procedural nicety? It is this cardinal question that
presents itself for consideration in the present case.

2. By way of this petition filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks regular
bail in case FIR No.455/2024 dated 02.10.2024 registered under
sections 8/20/21/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) at P.S.: Special Cell, Delhi.
Consequent upon completion of investigation, offences under sections
22/27A of the NDPS Act and sections 238B/209 of the Bharatiya
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 1 of 20

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been added vidé chargesheet dated
10.06.2025.
3. Notice on this petition was issued on 02.02.2026.
4. Status Report dated 27.02.2026 has been filed on behalf of the State.
5. Nominal Roll dated 25.02.2026 has been received from the Jail
Superintendent.
6. This court has heard Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel for the
petitioner; as well as Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, learned SPP for the
State, on 23.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 at length.
S UBMISSIONS ON EHALF OF THE ETITIONER
B P
7. Though much was argued on behalf of the petitioner on 23.04.2026, at

the hearing on 27.04.2026, Mr. Aggarwal confined his submissions
solely to the issue that ‘grounds of arrest’ were never supplied to the
petitioner in writing and that accordingly the petitioner’s arrest and
subsequent detention are illegal.
8. Mr. Aggarwal has submitted that, as is evident from Arrest Memo
dated 13.10.2024, a copy of which is appended as Annexure P-29 to the
petition, the petitioner was arrested from Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Gujarat
on 13.10.2024; and no grounds of arrest were supplied to him in
writing at that time . Counsel has further pointed-out, that a perusal of
the arrest memo would show that in fact there is no mention of any
‘grounds of arrest’ in that document; and the arrest memo only narrates
the reasons for the petitioner’s arrest.
9. In support of his submission that non-supply of the ‘grounds of arrest
in writing’ is fatal to an arrest, learned counsel for the petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 2 of 20

placed reliance on the following paras of a recent decision of the
1
Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India & Anr. :
“ 8. The appellant-Dr. Rajinder Rajan, who is a senior
orthopaedic surgeon and owner of the hospital, and the appellant-
Dr. Jatinder Malhotra being the proprietor of the pharmacy
(Corporate Medicos) were initially summoned under Section 67 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and
after recording their statements, both were arrested and remanded
rd
to judicial custody on 3 May, 2025.
*
“ 20. It is no longer res integra that supplying the grounds
of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given
case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is
the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under
Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra)
conclusively holds that any deviation from the above principle
would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal
entitling such accused to be released forthwith .
“ 21. Shri Kaushik tried to convince the Court that the
grounds of arrest were orally explained to the accused at the time
of preparation of the arrest memo. We have perused the arrest
memo placed on record by Shri Kaushik and extract the same for
the sake of ready reference:-
“Arrest Memo Consequent upon the recovery/seizure of
2000 Tablets of Tramadol on 02/05/2025 from Corporate
Chemist inside Corporate Hospital, Batola Road, Amritsar -
14300/ and on the basis of voluntarily statement dated
02/05/2025 of Rajinder Rajan S/O Janak Raj R/o D-84,Ranjit
Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act, 1985
having reasons to believe that Rajinder Rajan has violated
section 8 and 22 of NDPS act and committed offence punishable
u/s 8 and 22 of NDPS Act; accordingly, I place Rajinder Rajan
under arrest on 02/05/2025 at 2300 hrs. I have explained the
ground of arrest to him/her before arrest.
(SD)”

1
Order dated 01.04.2026 in SLP (Crl.) Nos.3326/2026 and 3327/2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 3 of 20

“ 22. On going through the arrest memo, we find that it has
been prepared in a template format and contains a statement to the
effect that the arresting officer had explained the grounds of arrest
to the accused before the arrest. Thus, the arrest memo, by itself,
reflects that the grounds of arrest had been orally explained to
the accused before the process of formal arrest was undertaken.
Consequently, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to have
supplied the memo of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused
two hours prior to producing them before the Magistrate as per
the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which apparently has
not been followed in this case .
“ 23. In the wake of the above discussion, we are of the firm
view that the appellants are entitled to be released from custody by
giving them the benefit of the ratio laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah
(supra). Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the appellants shall
be released on bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds to
the satisfaction of the trial Court and such other conditions as it
may deem fit to impose. ”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Furthermore, it has been submitted, that in manifest violation of the
dictum laid-down by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs.
2
State of Maharashtra & Anr. , the grounds of arrest were not
furnished to the petitioner in writing even 02 hours prior to his
production before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ankleshwar, Distt.: Bharuch, Gujarat when his transit remand was
sought. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as follows:
“ 62. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are
already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent
basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished
to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional
circumstances such as offences against body or property committed

2
(2026) 1 SCC 500
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 4 of 20

in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in
writing on arrest is rendered impractical , it shall be sufficient for
the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey
the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of
grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a
reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to
production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand
proceedings . The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest
and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a
cause for it be included for the information of the Magistrate.
“ 63. The above indicated lower limit of two hours
minimum interval before the production is grounded in the
functional necessity so that the right as provided to an arrestee
under the Constitution and the statute is safeguarded effectively .
This period would ensure that the counsel has adequate time to
scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant material to defend
the arrestee proficiently and capably while opposing the remand.
Any shorter interval may render such preparation illusory, thereby
resulting in non-compliance of the constitutional and statutory
mandate. The two-hour threshold before production for remand
thus strikes a judicious balance between safeguarding the
arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving
the operational continuity of criminal investigations .
“ 64. In view of the above, we hold with regard to the second
issue that non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee
prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest on
the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of Section
50CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds
are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case
two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the
Magistrate for remand proceedings.
“ 65. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule
for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the
arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee .
On such release, an application for remand or custody, if required,
will be moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same,
after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing setting forth the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 5 of 20

Explanation for non-supply thereof within the above stipulated
schedule. On receipt of such an application, the Magistrate shall
decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a week of
submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
“ 66. In conclusion, it is held that:
66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing the
arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences
under all statutes including offences under IPC, 1860 (now
BNS 2023) ;
66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands ;
66.3. 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 .
66.4. 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 . ”
(emphasis supplied)
11. It has been submitted that the arrest of the petitioner is therefore
vitiated; and the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail during the
pendency of the trial.

12. Mr. Aggarwal has also submitted, that as evidenced from the nominal
roll, as of 25.02.2026 the petitioner has spent more than 01 year and 04
months in judicial custody; that his overall jail conduct has been
‘satisfactory’; and that he has no other criminal implications.
S UBMISSIONS ON B EHALF OF THE S TATE
13. Opposing the grant of bail, learned SPP appearing for the State has
argued that since the petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2024 , there was
no requirement in law at that time to furnish upon him the grounds of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 6 of 20

arrest in writing, since in Mihir Rajesh Shah , the Supreme Court has
observed that the grounds of arrest have to be communicated to the
arrestee in writing ‘ henceforth ,’ that is to say after the date of
pronouncement of the verdict in Mihir Rajesh Shah , which judgment
was pronounced on 06.11.2025 . In support of this submission, learned
SPP has drawn attention to the following paras of the said judgment:
“ 67. After having come to the above conclusion, it is
pertinent to note that the provision of law under Section 50 CrPC
(Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode of
or time-frame for communication of the grounds of arrest to the
person arrested. This Court in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3
SCC (Cri) 573], held that the grounds of arrest be conveyed to the
arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest, which means it
need not be given at the time of arrest but within a reasonable time
thereafter, for offences under all the statutes, which period would be
as has been laid down above in this order.
“ 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 criminal justice. The ends of
fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure
as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth . ”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Furthermore, Mr. Singh has relied upon a decision of the Division
3
Bench of this court in Karan Singh vs. State NCT of Delhi , to point-
out that the petitioner in that case was arrested on 07.02.2024 , and

3
2026 SCC OnLine Del 282
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 7 of 20

proceeding on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mihir
Rajesh Shah which was pronounced on 06.11.2025 , the Division Bench
has declined to quash the arrest inter-alia observing that the decision in
Mihir Rajesh Shah operates prospectively.
15. Learned SPP has also relied upon the verdict of the Supreme Court in
4
State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. , to submit that the petitioner
has failed to show any ‘demonstrable prejudice’ caused to him on
account of the non-supply of grounds of arrest in writing; and the same,
being a mere procedural lapse, does not ipso-facto vitiate the arrest or
entitle the petitioner to grant of bail. The relevant extract of Sri
Darshan Etc. is as follows:

“ 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.

4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 8 of 20

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 [2025
SCC OnLine SC 456], 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
[2025 INSC 768], 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 [(2024) 7 SCC 576] 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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 9 of 20

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 . 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 . ”
(emphasis supplied)
16. Learned SPP has further submitted, that in any event, the grounds of
arrest were duly furnished to the petitioner in writing by way of
application dated 14.10.2024 seeking transit remand filed before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ankleshwar, Distt.:
Bharuch, Gujarat; as also in application dated 16.10.2024 seeking
police custody remand filed before the learned ASJ/Special
Judge/NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. It has been submitted,
that both the remand applications contained all the relevant information
and particulars, and effectively served as written communication of the
grounds of arrest to the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 10 of 20

EJOINDER UBMISSIONS ON EHALF OF THE ETITIONER
R S B P
17. Rejoining to the arguments advanced by the learned SPP, Mr.
Aggarwal has submitted, that the requirement of furnishing grounds of
arrest in writing to an arrestee flows directly from Article 22(1) of the
Constitution; and that the police are obligated to comply with such
constitutional mandate with effect from the date of pronouncement of
5
the judgment in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors . , i.e., w.e.f.
03.10.2023 . Counsel has submitted that any non-compliance by the
police with such requirement would render the arrest illegal; and
consequently enure to the benefit of the petitioner. In this regard,
counsel has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in
6
Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , Vihaan
7
Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. , Mihir Rajesh Shah , and Dr.
Rajinder Rajan .
18. In particular, Mr. Aggarwal has invited the attention of this court to the
order of the Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan dated 01.04.2026. In
the said case, the persons arrested on 03.05.2025 were directed to be
released from custody on the ground that grounds of arrest had not
been furnished to them in writing at least two hours prior to their
production before the Magistrate. It has further been pointed-out, that
in Dr. Rajinder Rajan , the Supreme Court has placed reliance on the
dictum in Mihir Rajesh Shah notwithstanding the fact that the said

5
(2024) 7 SCC 576
6
(2024) 8 SCC 254
7
(2025) 5 SCC 799
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 11 of 20

decision was rendered subsequently on 06.11.2025 , i.e., after the date
of arrest in Dr. Rajinder Rajan and has granted relief.
19. Learned counsel has accordingly submitted, that this clearly
demonstrates that the observations in Mihir Rajesh Shah are not
prospective in operation, but merely reiterate and reaffirm the settled
position of law as it existed prior thereto.
20. Insofar as the reliance placed by the State on Sri Darshan Etc. is
concerned, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in its
subsequent decision in Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. vs. The State rep. by
8
Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr. the Supreme Court 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. However, while setting
aside the order passed by the High Court and consequently setting

8
Order dated 14.10.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.4505/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 12 of 20

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. ”
(emphasis supplied)
21. Furthermore, counsel has submitted, that insofar as the contention of
furnishing grounds of arrest to the petitioner by way of application
dated 14.10.2024 seeking transit remand is concerned, firstly the said
application was never served upon the petitioner; and secondly, a
perusal of the said application would show that it is entirely bereft of
any ‘grounds of arrest’ relating to the petitioner.
22. Mr. Aggarwal has also pointed-out that even if it is the prosecution case
that grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner by way of
application dated 16.10.2024 filed before the learned ASJ/Special
Judge/NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi while seeking police
custody remand, that would still fall foul of the requirement laid-down
by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah viz., that grounds of arrest
are to be communicated in writing at least 02 hours prior to the
arrestee being produced for remand before the Magistrate. It is also
submitted that what has been recorded by the learned Special Judge in
the said order, to the effect that grounds of arrest had already been
supplied to the accused persons, is merely on the say-so of the I.O.,
since the record does not support that narration.
23. Counsel has submitted that in view of the above submissions, the
petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief of grant of bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 13 of 20

ISCUSSION ONCLUSIONS
D & C
24. Having considered the rival submissions and the legal position as
crystallised by the Supreme Court, this court is of the view that the
petitioner’s arrest and subsequent detention fall foul of the
constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution as
judicially expounded. The consistent thread running through Pankaj
Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, Mihir Rajesh Shah, and
Dr. Rajinder Rajan is that the requirement of informing an arrestee of
the grounds of arrest is not a technical formality but a substantive,
sacrosanct safeguard of personal liberty. These decisions unequivocally
hold that such grounds must be communicated in writing, in a language
understood by the arrestee, at the earliest, and in any event within a
time‑frame which ensures that the arrestee has a fair and effective
opportunity to consult counsel, oppose remand, and seek bail. They
further draw a clear distinction between generic “reasons for arrest” as
routinely recorded in arrest memos and “grounds of arrest” which are
personal and specific to the accused; observing that the former cannot
be treated as a substitute for the latter.
25. In Mihir Rajesh Shah , the Supreme Court has authoritatively laid-down
that where the police are already in possession of documentary material
furnishing a cogent basis for arrest, the written grounds of arrest must
be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest; and, even in exceptional cases
where immediate service of written communication is impracticable, a
written copy of the grounds of arrest must in any event be supplied
within a reasonable time and “in no event later than two hours prior” to
production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 14 of 20

proceedings, failing which the arrest is rendered illegal and the arrestee
is entitled to be released.
26. In its most recent pronouncement dated 01.04.2026 in Dr. Rajinder
Rajan , the Supreme Court has applied this dictum to arrests made on
03.05.2025 – i.e., before Mihir Rajesh Shah came to be pronounced on
06.11.2025 – namely, to arrests effected prior to the decision in Mihir
Rajesh Shah. In Dr. Rajinder Rajan the Supreme Court has directed the
release of the arrestees on bail, since the arrest memos merely recorded
that grounds of arrest were orally explained but written grounds were
not furnished (at least) two hours before remand. In the opinion of this
court, a reading of Dr. Rajinder Rajan shows that Mihir Rajesh Shah
does not create a fresh prospective regime but merely re‑affirms the
constitutional requirement inherent in Article 22(1) as earlier
elucidated , inter-alia in Pankaj Bansal , Prabir Purkayastha , and
Vihaan Kumar .
27. The decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah possibly cannot, and does not, move
forward the date from which the verdict in Pankaj Bansal takes effect
i.e., 03.10.2023 , which position is reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha and
Vihaan Kumar .
28. Read together, these authorities leave no room for doubt that
non‑supply of written grounds of arrest within the stipulated window
vitiates the arrest and the remand, irrespective of the statute under
which the arrest is made, though without invalidating the investigation
or the trial.

29. Tested on the anvil of the above principles, the State’s defence of the

arrest in the present case is unsustainable since:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 15 of 20

29.1. The arrest memo dated 13.10.2024 pertaining to the petitioner
does not record any person‑specific “grounds of arrest” but only
recites general “reasons for arrest” of the kind that have been
held by the Supreme Court to be insufficient;
29.2. There is no material to show that any separate written grounds of
arrest were furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest in
Gujarat or soon thereafter. On the State’s own showing, the
application dated 14.10.2024 for transit remand, was not served
on the petitioner; in any event, it does not disclose any
personalised grounds of arrest qua him. Even if the prosecution’s
response is taken at its highest, viz., that application dated
16.10.2024 seeking police custody remand in Delhi contained
adequate particulars, that document was filed at the time when
the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge in
Delhi and the ‘grounds of arrest’ were not supplied to the
petitioner at least two hours prior to his production. In other
words, at no stage prior to the remand proceedings in Gujarat or
in Delhi was the petitioner provided a written articulation of the
grounds on which he was being arrested in Gujarat, brought to
Delhi, and thereafter sought to be remanded to police custody in
Delhi;
29.3. This omission is not a curable procedural irregularity but a
substantive constitutional infraction which has caused
demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner. Deprived of written
grounds of arrest in advance, the petitioner was effectively
disabled from instructing counsel and meaningfully resisting the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 16 of 20

prayer for transit remand before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ankleshwar, Distt.: Bharuch, Gujarat; and
later from effectively opposing police custody remand before the
learned ASJ/Special Judge/NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi. The very purpose for which Article 22(1) insists on timely
written communication of grounds of arrest, viz. – to equip the
arrestee with sufficient knowledge to challenge the deprivation
of liberty – stood frustrated in this case; and
29.4. To be sure, the prejudice caused to the petitioner was not abstract
or speculative: the petitioner was first subjected to a transit
remand from Gujarat to Delhi and thereafter to police custody
remand in Delhi, without ever having been furnished, in writing
and in advance, the concrete and specific allegations and basis
that would constitute the grounds of his arrest. It is important to
observe that the petitioner was ‘arrested’ first when he was
served with an arrest memo which did not contain any grounds
of arrest and his transit remand was taken by the I.O. from the
court in Bharuch, Gujarat. Thereafter, the petitioner continued
to remain in custody. Therefore, the constitutional and statutory
mandate of serving the petitioner with grounds of arrest in
writing, was violated at the very first step, namely at the time of
his arrest in Bharuch, Gujarat . It is to be noted that while
granting transit remand to the petitioner on 14.10.2024, the
learned ACJM, Ankleshwar, Distt.: Bharuch, Gujarat nowhere
records that grounds of arrests were served upon the petitioner.
In these circumstances, the State’s contention that absence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 17 of 20

written grounds is a “mere procedural lapse” stands negatived
both by the binding constitutional exposition and by the manifest
prejudice that is evident in this case.
30. In such circumstances, this court is bound by the mandate spelt‑out in
Prabir Purkayastha , Vihaan Kumar, Mihir Rajesh Shah, and Dr.
Rajinder Rajan to hold that the arrest and consequential remand orders
relating to the petitioner suffer from constitutional infirmity; and
therefore, the petitioner’s continued incarceration cannot be justified
merely based on the gravity of the accusations or the rigours of the
NDPS Act.
31. At the same time, it is well‑settled that though illegality in arrest and

remand warrants that an arrestee be released from custody, it does not
by itself nullify the investigation or bar further action in accordance
with law. Accordingly, the investigating agency remains at liberty to
take such steps as may be permissible, including, if so advised,
effecting fresh arrest in strict compliance with the requirements of
Article 22(1), and of the provisions of the BNSS and the NDPS Act.
32. For the present purposes however, the constitutional violation in not
supplying the written grounds of arrest within the time and manner
mandated by the Supreme Court is sufficient to entitle the petitioner to
be set at liberty on bail, particularly when he has already spent more
than 01 year and 04 months in judicial custody, his jail conduct is
reported to be ‘satisfactory’, and no criminal antecedents have been
cited against him.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 18 of 20

33. In the totality of circumstances, this court is persuaded to grant to the
petitioner – Brijesh Kothia s/o Jayantilal Kothia – regular bail in the
present case, on the following terms and conditions:
33.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with 02 sureties in the like
amount from family members, to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court;
33.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer/S.H.O.,
Special Cell, Delhi a cellphone number on which the petitioner
may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is
kept active and switched-on at all times;

33.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the
learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without
prior permission of the learned trial court;
33.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case;
33.5. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise
indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and
33.6. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,
the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.
34. Since the petitioner is facing trial and would therefore be appearing
before the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered
necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular
bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 19 of 20

35. It is clarified however, that nothing contained in this judgment shall be
construed as an expression by this court of any opinion on the merits of
the prosecution case at trial.
36. The present petition is disposed-of in the above terms.
37. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.
38. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned jail
superintendent forthwith .

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
MAY 13, 2026
HJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:13.05.2026 15:05
BAIL APPLN. 439/2026 Page 20 of 20