Bail Plea on Grounds of Illegal Arrest Inadmissible After Accused Voluntarily Surrenders Following Interim Bail Default

The accused, Ratan Deb, was implicated in Lefunga P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act following the recovery of 960 bottles of Phensedyl and 320 bottles of Eskuf syrup from his premises and vehicle on 06.05.2023

The accused was arrested on 27.05.2025

He was later granted interim bail on humanitarian grounds (death of his brother) but failed to surrender on the appointed dates, citing illness

Consequently, a non-bailable warrant was issued, and the accused eventually surrendered on 19.11.2025

The petitioner (wife of the accused) filed the present bail application primarily on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not effectively communicated to the accused in a language he understood during his initial arrest

1. Whether the non-communication of the grounds of arrest in a language understandable to the accused renders his current custody illegal, thereby entitling him to bail

2. Whether the petitioner's suppression of facts and contradictory affidavits affect the maintainability of the bail application

The Court considered the procedural safeguards regarding arrest under the NDPS Act and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

It referenced Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025) regarding the mandatory requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in a language understandable to the arrestee

It also applied the principle from Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), which establishes that if an accused is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the warrant itself serves as the ground of arrest

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of judicial integrity regarding the conduct of petitioners who suppress material facts or file false affidavits

The Court found the petitioner’s arguments regarding the initial arrest to be "misplaced"

It reasoned that since the accused had already been released on interim bail and subsequently surrendered voluntarily following the issuance of a non-bailable warrant for violating bail conditions, the legality of the initial arrest on 27.05.2025 had become "insignificant"

At the time of this application, the accused was in custody due to his surrender before the Court, not due to original police arrest

The Court further scrutinized the petitioner’s conduct, noting that she had filed a previous application (B.A. 143/2025) with contradictory affidavits and had suppressed the fact that the accused was previously granted interim bail and had defaulted on appearance

The Court determined that the petitioner was inconsistently shifting stands to secure bail through deceptive means

It held that the precedents regarding communication of grounds of arrest were inapplicable because the accused's current detention stemmed from his surrender and court-issued warrants, not the initial arrest

The Court seriously deprecated the petitioner's acts of suppressing material facts and filing contradictory affidavits

The bail application was dismissed, and the trial court records were ordered to be re-consigned