Ramesh vs Union of India
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012556482026}
1. Ramesh
S/o Madan,
No.19/49, Sajjamunusamy Street,
1st Lane, Old Washermenpet,
Chennai.
2. Mohamed Noog Musharf AR
S/o Abdul Rahim,
No.99/98, 4th Street, Netaji Nagar,
Tondiarpet,
Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Union of India
Rep by, Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying
to set aside the remand order passed on 22.06.2024 by the Judicial Magistrate
Court,Ambattur,Chennai in RR.No.38 of 2024 dt.09.11.2024 on the file of
Respondent.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Karthikeyan
for Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
Special Public Prosecutor for NCB
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order of
remand dated 22.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ambattur, Chennai, thereby remanding the petitioner in connection with NCB
F.No.48/1/16/2024/NCB/MDS.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A3 in NCB
F.No.48/1/16/2024/NCB/MDS, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), r/w Sections 22(c), 28, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act 1985. The
allegation is that on 20.06.2024, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were intercepted by the
respondent police and they were found in possession of 2.700 kilograms of
white crystaline substance suspected to be Amphetamine. According to the
prosecution, the contraband recovered from A1 to A3 was allegedly delivered to
them by A4 at Bangalore and thereafter, it was transported by A1 and A2 to
Chennai.
3.The petitioners have challenged the remand order dated 22.06.2024 in
R.R No.38 of 2024 contending that they were not furnished with the grounds of
arrest. The petitioners/A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody
on 22.06.2024. However, they were not served with any grounds of arrest.
Therefore, the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest to the petitioners, is clear
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
violation of the Article 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Neither of
the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or
“detention” , as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Therefore,
the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of
detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a
person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and
22(5) of the Constitution of India, is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under
any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory
mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the
case may be.
4. Heard the submissions made on either sides and perused the materials
available on record.
5.On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that an arrest memo was
issued to the petitioners, stating that they were arrested for procuring,
possessing, attempt to transporting and entering criminal conspiracy for the
illicit trafficking of 2.700 kg of white colour crystal substance known as
Amphetamine. Accordingly, the petitioners were arrested and remanded to
judicial custody. The purpose for serving or intimating grounds of arrest has
been elaborately reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another reported in [2025 INSC 162] .
Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the arrest memo
contains the necessary information regarding the grounds of arrest, it does not
disclose the specific grounds of arrest in their entirety or furnish the particulars
necessary to enable the petitioners to effectively challenge their arrest.
6. The Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and
another [2025 INSC 162] has held that, the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India mandates that the information about the grounds of arrest to be provided
to the arrested person in such a manner, that sufficient context of the basic facts
constituting the grounds is important and communicated to the arrested person.
It further reads that the burden of compliance of Article 22(1) is on the persons,
who is exercising the power of arrest. Further elaborating the scope of Article
21, Article 22 and other connected provisions, the Apex Court had concluded as
follows:
“11. The view taken in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 was reiterated
by this Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha. In paragraph nos.
28 and 29, this Court held thus:
“28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of
the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the
constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of
“arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be
communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this
important facet of the fundamental right as made by the
Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the
requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is
concerned.
29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the
requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the
grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in
connection with an offence or a person placed under
preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and
22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot
be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this
constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would
lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal,
as the case may be.”
(emphasis added)
12. This Court held that the language used in Articles 22(1) and
22(5) regarding communication of the grounds is identical, and
therefore, this Court held that interpretation of Article 22(5) made
by the Constitution Bench in the case of Harikisan v. State of
Maharashtra3, shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate
the ground of arrest is concerned. We may also note here that in
paragraph 21, in the case of Prabir Purkayastha2, this Court also
dealt with the effect of violation of Article 22(1) by holding that
any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the
process of arrest and remand. Paragraph 21 reads thus:
“21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest
flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any
infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the
process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet
has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality
and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of
arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody
remand to the accused.”
(emphasis added)
13. In the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, in
paragraph 20, this Court held thus:
“20. It is an admitted position that the detenu does not know
English. The grounds of detention, which were served on the
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
detenu, have been drawn up in English. It is true that Shri
C.L. Antali, Police Inspector, who served the grounds of
detention on the detenu, has filed an affidavit stating that he
had fully explained the grounds of detention in Gujarati to
the detenu. But, that is not a sufficient compliance with the
mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires
that the grounds of detention must be “communicated” to the
detenu. “Communicate” is a strong word. It means that
sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the
“grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the
detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The
whole purpose of communicating the “ground” to the detenu
is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective
representation. If the “grounds” are only verbally explained
to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a
language which he understands, then that purpose is not
served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is
infringed. If any authority is needed on this point, which is so
obvious from Article 22(5), reference may be made to the
decisions of this Court in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra
[1962 Supp 2 SCR 918 : AIR 1962 SC 911 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ
797] and Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate [(1969) 1
SCR 227 : AIR 1969 SC 43 : 1969 Cri LJ 274] .”
(emphasis added)
Therefore, as far as Article 22(1) is concerned, compliance
can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic
facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The
grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the
arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same.
Therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in
a language which the arrestee understands. That is how, in the
case of Pankaj Bansal, this Court held that the mode of conveying
the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve
the intended purpose. However, under Article 22(1), there is no
requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing.
Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every person arrested
to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by
an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the
arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively
exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement
incorporated in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for
arresting the person without a warrant exist. Once a person is
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When
such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary
that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he
has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information
of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the objects stated
above.
....
“CONCLUSIONS:
21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds
of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);
b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided
to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient
knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is
imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively
in the language which he understands. The mode and method
of communication must be such that the object of the
constitutional safeguard is achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the
Investigating Officer/ Agency to prove compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1);
d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of
the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said
Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to
personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article
22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders
passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated.
Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge
sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet
will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under
Article 22(1);
e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial
Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to
ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other
mandatory safeguards has been made; and
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty
of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That
will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on
the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect
the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.
7. The purpose for serving or intimating grounds of arrest has been
elaborately reiterated in the judgment of Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar's case
cited supra and now the question arises, whether this arrest memo/ grounds of
arrest stated herein served the intended purpose of providing knowledge of the
facts of the case for which the petitioners were arrested and whether, were they
in a position to plead and prove before the Trial Court that, there are reasons to
believe that he or she is not guilty of the offence or not?
8. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the
information regarding the grounds of arrest in the arrest memo contains every
information for the arrest of the petitioners herein. From the outside view, it
might looks like the arrest memo gives the place of seizure, dates on which the
seizure was effected and the overtacts attributed against the petitioners, etc., but
the closer scrutiny of the memo, it does not disclosed or narrated the various
facts, including the fact regarding search and seizure conducted on the arrested
accused prior to service of summon and recording his statement under Section
67 of the NDPS Act, etc., the incriminating statement made by the petitioners
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
herein and also reasons for arresting him. Without these facts, the petitioners
could not able to defend their case at the time of remand and also could not
plead bail within the reasonable time for the purpose of establishing the grounds
for seeking bail. Hence, this Court is of the view that, the arrest memo served,
is in short form and only gives some facts. However for the purpose of enabling
the petitioners to raise the grounds for getting bail, the entire facts required to be
furnished to the petitioner in compliance of Article 22(1), so as to satisfy their
right to seek relief of bail and other reliefs.
9. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that, as held
by the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar's case , there was no proper compliance of
informing the grounds of arrest to the petitioners herein and there is violation of
Article 22(1), hence the custody of the petitioners is rendered illegal on account
of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioners herein, hence
this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
10. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on
their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) each, with two sureties each , for a like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act,
Chennai and on further conditions that:
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left
Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial
Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019'].
The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the
identity proofs to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioners shall report before the Trial Court
concerned daily at 10:30 a.m., until further orders;
[c] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions,
the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate
orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the
aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners
released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of
Kerala [ (2005)13 SCC 283 ];
[d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
10.In the result, this Criminal Original petition stands allowed.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
Note: Issue order copy on 12.11.2026
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur, Chennai
2.The Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act,
Chennai.
3. Junior Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal-I
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Uma
CRL OP No. 31355 of 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )