Suddhi vs The State Nct Of Delhi

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: 03 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010237092026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2025/2026
SUDDHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sikander Azam Khan, Adv.
Mob: 9891510300
Email: [email protected]

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State
Mob: 9868632122
Mr. Rakesh Kahiyal, SI, PS Special
Cell, Delhi
Mob: 9212727223
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking grant of regular
bail to the petitioner, i.e., Suddhi, S/o Pyare Lal, in connection with the First
th
Information Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 266/2023, dated 19 October,
2023, under Sections 20/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”), registered at Police Station (“PS”) Special
Cell, Trans Yamuna Range (“TYR”), New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 1 of 11

2. The facts of the present case, as culled out from the record, are as
follows:
2.1. The present FIR came to be registered pursuant to information received
th
from a secret informer on 19 October, 2023, that an inter-state drug syndicate
was involved in smuggling of contraband from Nepal and supplied the same
to major cities of the country, including Delhi and National Capital Region
(“NCR”).
2.2. The secret informant informed that the petitioner, an Uttar Pradesh
th
(“UP”) member of the said syndicate, was due to reach Delhi on 19 October,
2023 with a huge consignment of contraband in a car of the make and build
of Maruti Suzuki Swift, bearing registration no. UP-4234 , between 01:00 PM
and 01:30 PM, at Paper Market, Gazipur, Delhi, to deliver the said
consignment to another member of the said syndicate.
2.3. The secret information was lodged in General Diary (“GD”) bearing
no. 54A , and a raiding team was constituted. During the raid, the petitioner
was apprehended with a car bearing registration no. UP 32 DP 4234 . Upon
his instance, 15 sealed packets of transparent polyethene containing Charas
were recovered, weighing a total of 32.230 kilograms. Subsequently, the
present FIR was registered.
2.4. During the course of investigation, at the instance of the petitioner,
another raid was conducted at Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi , and
Pahlman Budha Magar @ Pahlman @ Khali Da was apprehended, along with
29.055 kilograms of Charas , and Rs. 1,68,000/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty-Eight
Thousand only) were recovered.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 2 of 11

2.5. Subsequently, at the instance of Pahlman Budha Magar @ Pahlman @
th
Khali Da, Kaliye Bahadur Argeja @ Dhan Bhadur was apprehended on 25
October, 2023, along with 1.438 kilograms of Charas .
3. The Sessions Case, being SC 149/2024, in connection with the present
FIR, is pending adjudication before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge
(“ASJ”)/Special Judge (NDPS), Patiala House Court, New Delhi, and is at the
stage of prosecution evidence.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the co-
st
accused has already been granted bail vide judgment dated 21 January, 2026,
passed by predecessor bench of this Court, in BAIL APPLN. 4034/2025 , titled
as Pahalman Budha Magar Versus State NCT of Delhi .
5. He further submits that the petitioner was not provided with the grounds
of arrest, and therefore, like the other co-accused, he is also entitled to be
released on bail. He, thus, seeks parity with the other co-accused.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the
th
State submits that, in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 19
October, 2023.
7. Therefore, he submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra and
Another, (2026) 1 SCC 500 , it was held that the ground of non-supply of
th
grounds of arrest shall only be applicable with effect from 06 November,
2025, i.e., the date of judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra).
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that 32 kilograms of Charas , i.e., commercial quantity as per the NDPS
Act, was recovered from the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 3 of 11

9. Furthermore, 29 kilograms of Charas was recovered from the co-
accused, who has already been granted bail on account of non-supply of
grounds of arrest.
10. It is to be noted that the petitioner in the present case was arrested on
th
19 October, 2023.
11. It is also to be noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj
Bansal Versus Union of India and Others, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1244 ,
rd
which is a judgment dated 03 October, 2023, held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the
Constitution provides, inter alia, 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. This being the
fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode
of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must
necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It
may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested
under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates
that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are
satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The
twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court
must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public
Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not
guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail . To meet this requirement, it would be
essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on
which the authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19
and the basis for the officer's “reason to believe” that he/she is
guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if
the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she
would be in a position to plead and prove before the Special
Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty
of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore,
communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 4 of 11

22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to
serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.
xxx xxx xxx
42. That being so, there is no valid reason as to why a copy
of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the
arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.
There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the
advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle.
Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to
the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further
and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the
word of the arrested person against the word of the authorised
officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance
in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar
as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though ED claims that
witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest
were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here
nor there as he did not sign the document. Non-compliance in
this regard would entail release of the arrested person
straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil
Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] . Such a
precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence
thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written
grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorised officer in terms
of Section 19(1) PMLA, to the arrested person under due
acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit
of the authorised officer.
43. The second reason as to why this would be the proper
course to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying such
information being given to the arrested person. Conveyance of
this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why
he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek
legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the court
under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In
this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil
Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] are
placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as
six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in
relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been
produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 5 of 11

produced at the time of remand. However, as already noted
earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the
event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would
be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant
Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard
being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More
so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm
and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of
remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read
out to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and
statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting
the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading
of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail,
and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement
under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section
19(1) PMLA.
xxx xxx xxx
45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose
to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1)
PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest,
we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of
such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person
as a matter of course and without exception. The
decisions………..
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. The aforesaid judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) was
considered in the case of Ram Kishor Arora Versus Directorate of
Enforcement, (2024) 7 SCC 599 , wherein, the Supreme Court held as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
23. As discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal
case also noticing the inconsistent practice being followed
by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 of
PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing
as a matter of course, “henceforth”, meaning thereby from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 6 of 11

the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The very
use of the word “henceforth” implied that the said
requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to
the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not the
mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Singhvi
for the Appellant that the said judgment was required to be
given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the
judgment itself states that it would be necessary
“henceforth” that a copy of such written grounds of arrest
is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and
without exception. Hence non furnishing of grounds of
arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment
in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor
the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the
same in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of
informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest
is a sufficient compliance of Section 19 of PMLA as also
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay
Madanlal (supra).
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. Reading of the aforesaid judgment clearly shows that the Supreme
Court has held, in categorical terms, that in case grounds of arrest are not
provided to an accused, the said arrest shall be considered as illegal, from the
rd
date of the judgment of Pankaj Bansal (supra) , i.e., 03 October, 2023. Thus,
it is noted that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested subsequently on
th
19 October, 2023.
14. Therefore, in terms of the judgment in the case of Ram Kishor Arora
(supra) and Pankaj Bansal (supra), the respondent was required to provide
the grounds of arrest. In the absence thereof, the arrest of the petitioner shall
be considered illegal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 7 of 11

15. As regards the submissions made by the learned APP for the State with
regard to the grounds of arrest being mandatory only from the date of the
judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), it is to be noted that the
said judgment in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) deals with all the
arrests with respect to all the crimes, which are covered under the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”)/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)/BNSS.
16. However, the judgment in the case of Ram Kishore Arora (supra) and
Pankaj Bansal (supra) dealt with Special Acts. It is also to be noted that the
present case also pertains to a Special Act, i.e., the NDPS Act.
17. Therefore, the present case is clearly within the scope of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishore Arora (supra) and Pankaj
Bansal (supra).
18. This Court also takes note of the fact that the co-accused of the
st
petitioner has already been enlarged on bail vide judgment dated 21 January,
2026, passed by this Court, in BAIL APPLN. 4034/2025.
19. It is to be noted that in the present case, the quantity which has been
recovered from the petitioner is commercial quantity. Thus, it is to be noted
that in the cases involving the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court
may grant bail upon satisfaction of the twined conditions, i.e., firstly, there
are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence, secondly, the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail. However, it is to be seen that the primary issue raised by the petitioner
in the present case, is with regard to non-supply of grounds of arrest.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 8 of 11

20. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”), is a
substantive constitutional safeguard and not a procedural formality.
21. Therefore, the position is clear that grounds of arrest must be
communicated to an accused person, in terms of the aforesaid judgments of
the Supreme Court.
22. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is very clear that in case of
non-supply of the grounds of arrest, the arrest ipso facto would get vitiated on
account of directly violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
23. Upon a pointed query by this Court, the learned APP for the State
concedes the fact that no ground of arrest had been provided to the petitioner.
24. This Court notes that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in a similar
st
situation, in the judgment dated 21 January, 2026, in BAIL APPLN.
4034/2025 , titled as Pahalman Budha Magar Versus State NCT of Delhi , has
held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
19. No doubt, while granting bail in a case under Section
37 of the NDPS Act, this Court must take due note of the
twin conditions elucidated hereinabove, however, the same
must, be balanced with the fundamental guarantee of an
accused being provided the grounds of arrest as per Article
22 (1) of the Constitution. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and/
or the other factors for granting bail to an accused, in such
a scenario, cannot eclipse/ override Article 22 (I) of the
Constitution. A balance has, thus, to be drawn. Also, in light
of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which affirms the view rendered
in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra),
the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity on
the basis of non-supply of grounds of arrest is not barred by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 9 of 11

Section 37 of the NDPS Act and once it is admitted that no
grounds of arrest were given at the time of the arrest to an
accused, the said arrest and the subsequent remand
becomes vitiated.
20. Under such circumstances, since there were no grounds
of arrest mentioned and/ or supplied to the applicant takes
precedence over the other factor like gravity of the offence,
the quantum of recovery, there being no videography/
photography and/ or there being no independent witnesses.
The same need not be gone into by this Court at this stage.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. Accordingly, considering the discussions hereinabove and also on the
ground of parity, the petitioner herein is granted regular bail in connection
th
with the FIR No. 266/2023, dated 19 October, 2023, under Sections 20/25/29
of the NDPS Act, registered at Police PS Special Cell, TYR, New Delhi.
26. The petitioner shall be released subject to furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only), along with one surety of
the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Court/Duty
Magistrate, and further subject to following conditions:
a) The petitioner shall report to the concerned Investigating Officer
(“IO”)/Station House Officer (“SHO”), at PS Special Cell, TYR, New
Delhi, once every month, in the first week of month, unless leave for
every such absence is obtained from the Special Court.
b) The petitioner shall appear before the Special Court on each and every
date of hearing.
c) The petitioner shall ordinarily reside at the address as per prison
records, and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/SHO.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 10 of 11

d) The petitioner shall furnish his mobile number to the concerned
IO/SHO, and shall ensure that the said mobile number remains
operational and switched on at all times. The mobile number shall not
be changed, nor shall the phone be switched off, without prior
intimation to the IO/SHO.
e) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, contact/visit/offer any
inducement, or threat, or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses
or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
f) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence nor
otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.
g) The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the
proceedings.
27. It is clarified that the observations made in the present order are solely
for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall neither
influence the trial proceedings nor be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
28. The present application is allowed and accordingly disposed of, in the
aforementioned terms.
29. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
information and necessary compliance.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ SK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
21:25:34
Page 11 of 11