Failure to communicate specific grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest and warrants the grant of bail.

The accused, Rupak Bhattacharjee, was arrested on April 4, 2025, in connection with Sidhai P.S. Case No. 45 of 2024 (Special NDPS 12/2025) for alleged offenses under Sections 22(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The arrest memo noted the "grounds of arrest" merely as the sections of the law.

The State contended that the forwarding report mentioned that grounds and reasons were communicated to the accused and his family.

The applicant moved for bail, arguing that the failure to communicate substantial grounds of arrest rendered the detention illegal.

Whether the mere mention of statutory sections in an arrest memo satisfies the constitutional and statutory requirement of communicating "grounds of arrest".

Whether the arrest and subsequent detention of the accused were illegal due to procedural non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

The court relied on the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) regarding the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.

It applied the distinction between "reasons for arrest" (formal investigative parameters) and "grounds of arrest" (factual details necessitating arrest) established in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi).

It further integrated the mandate from Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which requires written grounds of arrest to be furnished to the arrestee.

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which places the burden of proving compliance on the Investigating Agency.

While noting State of Karnataka v. Darshan regarding the "prejudice-oriented test", the court maintained the rigorous standard for communication of grounds set by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

The court found that the arrest memo only listed the sections of the NDPS Act, which falls short of the "grounds of arrest" involving the basic facts constituting the offense.

Relying on Vihaan Kumar, the court noted that when an accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden of proof shifts to the State.

The court observed that the State’s forwarding report contained only a "bald statement" that grounds were communicated, without specifying the manner or details of such communication.

Following the ratio in Ashis Kakkar, the court determined that an arrest memo devoid of worthwhile particulars cannot be construed as sufficient communication of grounds.

Consequently, the lack of evidence showing that factual grounds were effectively imparted to the accused vitiated the arrest.

The bail application was allowed, and the accused was ordered to be released on a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one local surety.

The court imposed conditions including a prohibition on leaving the state without permission, a mandate not to influence witnesses, and a requirement to report to the trial court weekly.