Failure to Furnish Written Grounds of Arrest to Accused Vitiates Arrest and Mandates Grant of Bail

The complainant discovered an unclaimed bag containing 16.452 kg of ganja aboard the Rajdhani Express at New Delhi Railway Station (NDRS).

FIR No. 145/2023 was registered under Sections 20/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act and Section 380 of the IPC.

During investigation, co-accused Subhash Kumar Yadav, arrested on 16.10.2023, named the applicant as the supplier.

The applicant, already in custody for a separate NDRS FIR, was formally arrested in the present case on 12.01.2024.

The applicant moved for regular bail, primarily contending that his fundamental rights were violated as the Arrest Memo was silent on the grounds of arrest.

Whether the non-communication of the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest vitiates the custody and entitles the applicant to bail.

Whether the applicant meets the requirements for grant of regular bail under Section 483 read with Section 439 of the BNSS.

The court primarily applied Article 22(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which mandate that an arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest to afford a real opportunity for defense.

It relied on the landmark precedent Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which established that grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing.

This principle was further reinforced by Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (extending the mandate to all statutes) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (laying down procedural safeguards for written communication).

The court also noted Section 483 and 439 of the BNSS (corresponding to the CrPC) regarding bail jurisdiction.

The Court found that "the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the applicant in writing at the time of his arrest" as per the Arrest Memo dated 12.01.2024, a fact undisputed by the State's counsel (APP).

Following the settled law in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, the Court reasoned that meaningful furnishing of written grounds is a mandatory constitutional requirement.

Since this fundamental right was violated, the arrest was deemed illegal.

Additionally, the Court observed that the applicant was not named in the original FIR and no recovery was made directly from him.

The application was allowed, and the applicant was granted regular bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, one surety, and specific conditions including the surrender of his passport and joining the investigation as required.