Bail cannot be granted for commercial-quantity NDPS offences absent satisfaction of Section 37’s twin conditions.

The applicants, Jayanta Sarkar and Raone Rudra Pal, sought regular bail in connection with Khowai P.S. Case No. 2020 KHW 007, registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

On 13 February 2026, police intercepted the applicants’ vehicle during routine checking and allegedly recovered 45 packets containing approximately 121 kg of dry ganja from the back seat and trunk.

The seizure and search were conducted in the presence of a Deputy Collector and Magistrate, and the applicants were arrested at the spot.

They were produced before the Special Judge within twenty-four hours and subsequently remanded to custody.

The police filed the charge-sheet on 3 August 2026.

Their successive bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge, most recently on 18 August 2026.

Whether the applicants’ arrest and continued detention were rendered illegal by failure to meaningfully communicate the grounds of arrest in a language understood by them, as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS?

Whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite the alleged procedural violation, having regard to the recovery of 121 kg of ganja constituting commercial quantity and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the applicants could raise the alleged non-compliance with the grounds-of-arrest requirement for the first time before the High Court in the present bail application?

Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest and be permitted to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner; Article 22(2) requires production before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours.

Section 47 of the BNSS incorporates the statutory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest, while Section 48 concerns intimation of arrest to relatives or nominated persons.

Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, the Court held that the basic factual grounds of arrest must be meaningfully communicated in a language understood by the arrestee; “reasons for arrest” of a generic nature are distinct from the personal and factual “grounds of arrest”.

However, the Court accepted that Article 22(1) does not expressly require written communication in every case, although written communication is the preferable method of avoiding disputes.

Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail in a case involving commercial quantity can be granted only if the Public Prosecutor is heard and the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court found that the applicants were produced before the Special Judge within twenty-four hours, thereby satisfying Article 22(2).

Although the arrest memo was in English, the Court held that the decisive question was whether the factual basis of the arrest—interception of the vehicle, alleged possession, recovery and seizure of 121 kg of ganja—had been explained to the applicants in Bengali.

The seizure list, arrest memo, applicants’ signatures and the prosecution’s contemporaneous endorsement that the grounds had been read over and explained in Bengali supported the State’s case.

The Court also noted that the applicants had been represented by counsel before the trial court and had not raised the alleged defect at the earliest stages, weakening their claim that they were unaware of the basis of their arrest or prejudiced in seeking legal relief.

In any event, the alleged recovery was 121 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity, attracting Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

On the material available, the Court could not record reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants were not guilty or that they would not commit an offence while on bail.

Given the alleged recovery of 121 kg of ganja constituting commercial quantity, the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were also not satisfied.

The bail application was therefore dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.