Accused In 300-Kg Ganja Case Gets Bail After Madras HC Finds Arrest Memo Failed To Fully Communicate Grounds Of Arrest

The petitioner, arrayed as A4 in an NCB case under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 28 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, was arrested in connection with the alleged transport of approximately 300 kg of ganja and remanded to judicial custody on 20 February 2025.

He challenged the remand, contending that the grounds of arrest had not been adequately communicated to him.

The arrest memo referred to the alleged procurement, possession and transport of ganja, but the Court found that it did not set out, among other matters, the relevant search-and-seizure details, the petitioner’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, or the reasons for arrest

Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest in a manner that effectively communicates sufficient knowledge of the basic facts, in a language the person understands.

As explained in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2025 INSC 162], the burden of proving compliance rests on the investigating agency; non-compliance violates Articles 22(1) and 21, vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand orders, and requires the court to order release.

Article 22(1) does not require communication in writing, but the mode of communication must achieve the constitutional safeguard’s purpose.

The Court also referred to Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal, Harikisan and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel in considering the requirements of effective communication

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS

The Court considered whether the arrest memo gave the petitioner sufficient information to understand and challenge the basis of his arrest.

Although it identified the alleged offence and the quantity of ganja, the Court found it abbreviated and lacking material particulars, including details of the search and seizure, the petitioner’s Section 67 statement and the reasons for arrest.

In the Court’s view, the information was therefore insufficient to enable the petitioner to effectively contest the arrest or seek bail.

Applying Vihaan Kumar, it held that Article 22(1) had not been complied with and that the resulting custody was unlawful

Bail was subject to a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for the like sum, daily reporting to the trial court at 10:30 a.m. until further orders, and the other specified conditions