Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man Arrested With 32 Kg Charas After State Admits It Gave No Grounds Of Arrest

The petitioner was arrested on 19 October 2023 after 32.230 kg of charas was allegedly recovered from his car; the prosecution also alleged that further recoveries were made from co-accused following his apprehension

The case was pending before the Special Judge (NDPS) at the prosecution-evidence stage

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, relying on the grant of bail to a co-accused and alleging that he had not been provided the grounds of arrest.

On the Court’s query, the State conceded that no grounds of arrest had been provided

Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest; the Court treated this as a substantive constitutional safeguard

In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court directed, prospectively from 3 October 2023, that written grounds of arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA be furnished to the arrested person

Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement clarified that this written-supply requirement operated “henceforth” from the date of Pankaj Bansal

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity; the Court relied on the co-accused bail order’s reasoning that those conditions do not override Article 22(1) where grounds of arrest were not supplied

The Court distinguished the State’s reliance on Mihir Rajesh Shah on the basis that it concerned arrests under general criminal law, whereas the present case arose under a special statute

The petitioner’s arrest occurred on 19 October 2023, after the date from which the Court understood Pankaj Bansal to require written grounds of arrest; the State also admitted that none had been provided

The Court therefore held that the arrest was vitiated for non-compliance with Article 22(1), and rejected the State’s reliance on Mihir Rajesh Shah because the case concerned the NDPS Act, a special statute

Although the alleged recovery was commercial quantity, the Court followed the co-accused bail order’s view that Section 37 could not eclipse the constitutional safeguard; it also noted that the co-accused had been granted bail on the same ground

Release was ordered on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including monthly reporting to the police, attendance at trial, keeping contact details current, and not contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial