Amar Thapa vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 06.07.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 10.07.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1865/2026
AMAR THAPA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Meghan and Mr. Vipul Shivhare,
Advocates

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Dinesh Kumar


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


J U D G M E N T




1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 49/2025 of
Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur for offence under Section 20/25 of the
NDPS Act.
2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. On 17.01.2025,
on the basis of specific named secret information, the present
accused/applicant was apprehended from second floor flat of a premises in
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. In the course of search of the said premises,
two packets were recovered and the same were later found on being tested
with the Field Testing Kit as 1.516 kg charas. The allegedly recovered
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 1 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4
0f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:43:30 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

contraband and other article were converted into parcel and sealed with the
seal of NG, name of the IO being Naveen Gurjar. After registration of FIR,
the accused/applicant was interrogated and arrested on 17.01.2025.
3. I heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned APP for
State assisted by the Investigating Officer (IO).
4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant raised two grounds in support
of the bail application.
4.1 Firstly, it was argued that the material deposited with the malkhana is
not the material allegedly recovered from the accused/applicant, and the
recovery proceedings stand vitiated. It was argued that column 3 of Register
No. 19 names the IO as the person who deposited the sealed parcel in
malkhana , whereas the SHO in his statement under Section 161 CrPC stated
that it is he who deposited the said parcels in malkhana . It was also
submitted that the seal on the deposited parcels is of NG (Naveen Gurjar)
while seal of the SHO Inspector Prahlad Matsaya is PSM according to
statement of the SHO.
4.2 Secondly, it was contended that since grounds of arrest were not
furnished to the accused/applicant, he is entitled to be released on bail. In
support of this contention, learned counsel for accused/applicant referred to
certain judicial precedents, which are discussed hereafter.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for State contended that the quantity
of charas recovered from the accused/applicant was commercial quantity, so
twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 2 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.07.10 10:43:06 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31
GIRISH
KATHPALIA

into play. It was also argued that even as per FIR, the sealed parcels were
sent by the IO from the spot of recovery for perusal of the SHO, the superior
officer and it is thereafter that the SHO deposited the sealed parcels in the
malkhana . It was pointed out by learned APP that Register No. 19, which is
relied upon by the accused/applicant, itself also mentions that the seal of
PSM was affixed by the SHO on the parcels as counter seal to maintain the
purity of the recovered material. As regards grounds of arrest, learned APP
submitted that the same are clearly defined in Serial No. 9 of the Arrest
Memo. Further, it was submitted that in terms with settled legal position,
the requirement of detailed grounds of arrest has to be kept in mind only in
those cases where the accused is arrested after November 2025, while in the
present case, the accused/applicant was arrested on 17.01.2025, so even if
the grounds of arrest were not supplied, the accused/applicant cannot be
granted bail on that ground, ignoring the twin conditions of Section 37 of the
Act. It was further contended by learned APP that since the
accused/applicant does not claim having suffered any prejudice on account
of the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest, this ground does not help
him.
6. Admittedly, the quantity of charas allegedly recovered from the
accused/applicant was a commercial quantity. That being so, the twin
conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the Act come into play. It would
be important to keep in mind that the provision under Section 37 of the Act
is couched in negative expression that no person accused of an offence
punishable for offences under Section 19, 24 or 27A and also for offence
involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail. The exception
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 3 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.07.10 10:42:53 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31
GIRISH
KATHPALIA

carved out by the legislature is that such a person can be released on bail
only after giving the public prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the bail
application and where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied of two aspects. One of those aspects is the satisfaction of
the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty of such offence, and the other aspect is that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
7. So far as the argument pertaining to the entries in Register No. 19 is
concerned, it would be significant to note that after completing the search,
followed by recovery and the seizure proceedings, the IO/SI Naveen Gurjar
prepared a rukka in which he specifically recorded that the seized articles
were sealed by him with his seal of NG and the same were being sent to the
SHO, Kotla Mubarakpur area along with the tehrir and seizure memo
through HC Akshay Kumar. The seizure memo ( Annexure A-4 to the
application ) bears a specific endorsement of the SHO that he countersealed
the sealed parcels with his seal of PSM. Even the relevant page of Register
No. 19 ( Annexure A-6 to the application ) bears similar endorsement of the
SHO as regards countersealing of the parcels with his seal of PSM. Such
countersealing is conducted by the senior officer in order to ensure purity of
the material seized and sealed by the IO. I do not find this aspect a
reasonable ground to believe that the accused/applicant is not guilty of the
offence alleged against him.
8. Then comes the argument of non-supply of grounds of arrest. On this
aspect, it would be apposite to briefly traverse through the legal position as
culled out of different judicial pronouncements cited by learned counsel for
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 4 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c
6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f8
0cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:42:38 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

accused/applicant.
8.1 In the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) , 2024
INSC 414, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the dismissal of a
miscellaneous case by the learned Single Judge in which declaration was
sought by the petitioner that the arrest and the remand order were illegal
being in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21
and 22 of the Constitution of India took a view that supply of grounds of
arrest to an accused is of vital significance; and that there is a difference
between reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest in the sense that the former
are purely formal parameters while the latter are specific grounds containing
all such details which necessitate arrest of the accused. In the said case,
since the computerized arrest memo format did not contain any column
regarding grounds of arrest, the arrest and the remand order against the
petitioner therein were held vitiated.
8.2 In the case of Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India , 2023 INSC 866, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with dismissal of the writ petition by a
Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein challenge had
been raised to constitutional validity of Section 19 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, and setting aside of arrest and remand orders was
sought. The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined and described the
significance of grounds of arrest, holding that the same are those grounds
which would be personal to the accused, though at the same time authority
lies with the investigating officer to redact sensitive portions of the
document and furnish edited copy of grounds of arrest so that sanctity of
investigation is safeguarded. Since the grounds of arrest were merely read
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 5 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af
3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.07.10 10:42:25 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31
GIRISH
KATHPALIA

out to the accused in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the
arrest and remand orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ it would be
necessary henceforth that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is
furnished to the accused persons as a matter of course and without
exception” .
8.3 The issue as regards supply of grounds of arrest again came up before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs State of
Haryana & Ors. , 2025 INSC 162. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the requirement of informing the arrestee grounds of arrest is a mandatory
requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution; that such information of
grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that he
has sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds
effectively in the language which he understands; that where the arrestee
alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden
shall be on investigating agency to prove the compliance; that where
violation of Article 22(1) is established, it shall be the duty of the court to
forthwith order release of the accused; that non-supply of grounds of arrest
would be ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on grant of bail
exist. After examining the arrest memo served on the arrestee in the said
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the same incorporates name
of the arrestee, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR,
Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, name of the arresting
officer and particulars of the person to whom the arrest information was
furnished. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the said arrest memo,
holding that the same contained information about the arrest, which is
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 6 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:42:11 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

different from the grounds of arrest.
8.4 In the case of State of Karnataka vs Sri Darshan Etc., 2025 INSC
979, the accused contended that their arrest was illegal because grounds of
arrest were not furnished in writing immediately, thereby violating Article
22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
held thus:
“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, 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, 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 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, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 7 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:41:48 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

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)
8.5 In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. ,
2025 INSC 1288, the Hon’ble Supreme Court crystallized the issue involved
in that case as to whether rights of the appellant under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and Section 50 CrPC were violated as he was not
informed of grounds of his arrest in writing. After recapitulating the legal
position emerging out of the above cited judicial precedents qua the
constitutional tenets, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that mere oral
communication of grounds of arrest in the absence of any written document
renders the compliance susceptible to factual disputes which often result into
rival claims between the arrestee and the investigating agency, thereby
consequently jeopardizing the integrity of the arrest process and release of
the arrested person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that mandate
contained in Article 22(1) is unambiguous and clear that the arrestee must be
informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as the same can be done, so as to
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 8 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
Date: 2026.07.10 10:41:35 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31
GIRISH
KATHPALIA

enable the arrestee exercise his right to defend by consulting a legal
practitioner of his choice. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
also discussed in detail various exigencies and held that in exceptional
circumstances such as offences against body or property committed 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 for making the arrest to orally convey the same to the arrestee and
later on a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied within
reasonable time and positively not later than two hours prior to production
of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings.
8.6 In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
also dealt with another aspect in following terms:
“57. After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to note
that the provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (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 (supra), 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.
58. 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)

8.7 In the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs Union of India & Anr. , SLP
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 9 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af396
2c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f
80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:41:21 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

(Crl.) No. 3327 of 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the
decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) directed release of the accused from
custody as the grounds of arrest in writing were not furnished. But the other
aspects laid down in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) were not raised
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and were not examined in Dr. Rajinder
Rajan (supra).
9. Falling back to the present case, as mentioned above, on 17.01.2025
the accused/applicant was apprehended on the basis of specific named secret
information and from his premises, 1.516 kg charas was recovered, so after
completing procedural formalities, the IO arrested the accused/applicant.
Prior to the arrest, the accused/applicant was interrogated and he disclosed
that he is a native of Nepal and used to procure charas from co-accused
Thomas, who used to bring charas from Nepal and supply the same to him in
Delhi for further sale in small quantities. The limited purpose of this
reference to the said disclosure of the accused/applicant in police custody is
to keep in mind that at that stage promptness of the IO was required in order
to unearth the suppliers and receivers of charas. Going by the above cited
judicial precedents, what is to be seen is as to whether the alleged failure to
furnish grounds of arrest in writing in this case can be a ground to release
the accused/applicant on or without bail.
10. Certain vital aspects have to be kept in mind. As held in the above
cited judicial precedents, the provisions under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and/or Section 50 CrPC do not explicitly prescribe a
format of grounds of arrest and/or the timeframe for communication of
grounds of arrest to the arrestee. What has to be seen is as to whether the
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 10 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:41:06 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

accused was made aware as to why he was being arrested, so that he may
take appropriate steps for his defence and release from custody. Of course,
the grounds of arrest must be in the language which the accused/applicant
can understand. It is also trite according to the above cited judicial
precedents that in cases where it is not practicable to furnish written grounds
of arrest prior to conducting the arrest, the written grounds must be supplied
to the accused at least two hours prior to his production before the
magistrate for remand. It is also trite that where the arrest memos and
remand records reflect that the accused was aware of reasons of his arrest
and was legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after
arrest, it shows an immediate and informed understanding of the allegations.
In order to secure bail for failure to supply grounds of arrest, the accused
must show the prejudice, if any caused to him by the said procedural lapse
and in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, the non-supply of grounds of
arrest is at best a curable defect. As held in the above cited judicial
precedents, gravity of offence and other relevant factors for consideration of
bail cannot be overlooked, treating the non-supply of grounds of arrest as
determinative factor. Further, as explained in the above cited judicial
precedents, earlier there existed no consistent or binding requirement
mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all offences,
so a clarity was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to avoid
uncertainty in administration of criminal justice and consequently, the ends
of fairness and legal discipline, which demand that this procedure as
affirmed by the said judicial precedents shall govern the arrests after the said
legal position was elucidated.
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 11 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af396
2c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f
80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:40:52 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

11. In the present case, as mentioned above, the accused/applicant was
arrested on 17.01.2025, while the legal position qua impact of non-supply of
written grounds of arrest was elucidated with clarity in the case of Mihir
Rajesh Shah (supra), decided much later on 06.11.2025.
12. While dealing with the issue of bail, the court is duty bound to
balance rights of the accused and prerogative ( rather, the duty ) of the
investigating agency. Of course, fundamental rights of an accused are
sacrosanct. But what about the fundamental rights of rest of the society. This
Court cannot ignore the ground realities of the difficulties faced by police to
arrest an accused, more so in cases involving serious crimes. This Court
also cannot ignore the hard task for police to prevent further expanse of the
crime and efforts of the accused to destroy the evidence. In such
circumstances, should the accused be released on such ground, giving him a
chance to wipe out the evidentiary footprints before being again arrested
after formal supply of written grounds of arrest.
13. In the present case, the accused/applicant specifically disclosed that
he had been purchasing the allegedly recovered contraband from co-accused
Thomas. The priority at that stage for the investigator was to ensure arrest of
Thomas and the investigator could not afford to lose time in legal niceties
giving Thomas an opportunity to flee. It is to deal with such urgency that the
format of the arrest memo was improvised by the Delhi Police. The arrest
memo served on the present accused/applicant prior to his arrest contains
paragraph 9(a) to 9(e). The heading of the said paragraph is “reasons of
arrest”, but if examined carefully, what the sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) disclose
are grounds of arrest. Those grounds are that the arrest is required in order to
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 12 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c
6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID
- 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80
cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:40:38 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

prevent the accused/applicant from committing any other offence; for proper
investigation of the case; to prevent the accused/applicant from causing the
evidence of the offence to disappear or tamper with such evidence in any
manner; to prevent the accused/applicant from making any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the police officer;
and as to whether presence of the accused/applicant in the court whenever
required cannot be ensured unless he is arrested. The arrest memo in the
present case was duly served on the accused/applicant and bears his
signatures. The arrest memo at its top mentions that the same is “ as per the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India” . That format of arrest
memo was prepared by the Delhi Police in honest understanding of the legal
position, and if the same is defective in any manner, the accused/applicant
cannot claim right to be released. In my view, the compliance with the
requirement to furnish grounds of arrest was substantial in the present case.
For, at the cost of repetition, it must be said that there is no legislatively or
judicially prescribed specific format. It cannot be said that the investigator
in the present case knowingly flouted any direction of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in order to deprive any right of the accused/applicant. Besides, in law
there is no sharpline distinction between what is generic information and
what is specific information. Rather, there cannot be such distinction as in
some cases, what may appear to be a generic information may also be
specific to the accused, as in the present case. I am unable to convince
myself that the said information as supplied to the accused/applicant was not
sufficient for the accused/applicant to defend himself.
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 13 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb
4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cb
d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:40:17 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

14. Going a step deeper, even if it is assumed despite the above
discussion that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the
accused/applicant, the record does not reflect any prejudice caused to the
accused/applicant for the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest.
Admittedly, on the very first occasion after arrest when the
accused/applicant was produced before the learned Special Judge for
remand, he was equipped with legal assistance. Even the application for
police remand clearly disclosed amongst other factors, an effort to trace out
the source of charas namely Thomas. Even in the order of first remand, the
learned Special Judge reiterated that police custody was necessary for
sustained interrogation, for collection of evidence, for eliciting information
about the supplier of the contraband, for apprehending and arresting the
supplier, and also to collect information about other receivers/suppliers.
15. Had the accused/applicant been not remanded by the learned Special
Judge, opportunities would have been presented to him on platter to ensure
that neither the supplier nor the subsequent purchasers could be apprehended
by the police. Even at the present stage, if the accused/applicant is released,
there is high probability of his absconding to his native place in Nepal,
thereby completely blocking the efforts of police to track down the expanse
of the network. The conscience of this Court does not allow that to happen.
I am conscious that in the case of Brijesh Kothia vs State NCT of Delhi ,
2026 DHC 4222, a co-ordinate bench of this Court while releasing the
accused on bail also held (paragraph 31) that “ the investigating agency
would remain at liberty to take such steps as may be permissible, including,
if so advised, effecting fresh arrest in strict compliance with the
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 14 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4
0f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.07.10 10:40:02 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31

requirements of Article 22(1) and of the provisions of the BNSS and the
NDPS Act ”. With utmost respect, I am unable to answer myself as to
whether it would be advisable in view of practical ground realities in offence
of the present nature to release the allegedly polluted element back to the
society, only to be taken back into custody after completing the necessary
paperwork.
16. It would be significant to understand that pernicious impact of drug
peddling extends far beyond providing consumers/addicts with fleeting
synthetic euphoria and eroding the collective productivity and work
potential of society. The illicit wealth generated through the drug trade also
fuels organized crime and is often channelled into terrorist activities, thereby
causing a grave threat to social stability, national security and public order.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find it a fit case to grant
bail to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.
18. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
being conveyed to the accused/applicant.

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a
f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.10 10:39:46 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA


GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JULY 10, 2026/ as/ry
Bail Application 1865/2026 Page 15 of 15 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.07.2026
11:00:31