Failure to furnish grounds of arrest violates constitutional safeguards, entitling the accused to bail.

The petitioners (Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.) sought the cancellation of bail and anticipatory bail granted to the respondents (A1 to A3) by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, on 02.12.2025.

The respondents were accused in Cr.No.27 of 2025 (later transferred to the CBI) for counterfeiting life-saving medicines (Rosuvas and Montek LC) in unlicensed premises.

The petitioners argued that the gravity of the economic and public health offense, along with supervening circumstances—specifically an attempt to bribe an investigating officer and violation of bail conditions—warranted cancellation.

A key procedural fact was that the Trial Court originally granted bail because the prosecution failed to establish that the "grounds of arrest" were legally furnished to the accused.

The court primarily applied the principles governing the cancellation of bail as established in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, which requires "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" for cancellation.

It followed the illustrative criteria for perversity and subsequent conduct set out in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab.

the court relied on the distinction between the "yardstick for cancellation" versus an "appeal against a bail order" as defined in X v. State of Telangana.

Furthermore, it applied the constitutional mandate for furnishing "grounds of arrest" as clarified in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and the general principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception".

The court found that the Principal Sessions Judge’s order was not perverse but was grounded in a significant legal infirmity in the arrest process.

Specifically, the Trial Court noted that no material was produced to prove that the "grounds of arrest" were furnished to the accused, which constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court reasoned that once constitutional safeguards are breached, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

Regarding the petitioners' claims of gravity and organized crime, the court noted that the Sessions Judge had already considered the nature of the allegations and found that most sections did not necessitate custodial interrogation.

As for the "supervening circumstances" (bribery and tampering), the court held these were not relevant to the current petitions, which were strictly focused on the legality of the original bail order; such claims must be addressed through separate applications before the competent jurisdictional court.

The court affirmed that the violation of the constitutional requirement to furnish grounds of arrest outweighs the gravity of the offense at the bail stage.

The petitions were dismissed, but liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach the competent court regarding any subsequent supervening circumstances.