Madras HC Grants Bail To Accused In 2.7-Kg Amphetamine Case, Finding Arrest Memo Failed To Fully Communicate Arrest Grounds

The petitioner was arrayed as A4 in an NCB case alleging offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 28 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that A1 to A3 were found with 2.700 kg of suspected amphetamine and that the petitioner had supplied it to them in Bangalore.

Arrested on 8 November 2024, the petitioner challenged his remand order dated 9 November 2024, contending that he had not been properly informed of the grounds of arrest.

The arrest memo stated that he was arrested for procuring, possessing and conspiring in the trafficking of the substance.

Article 22(1) requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest in a manner that effectively communicates sufficient knowledge of the basic facts, in a language the person understands; the arresting authority bears the burden of proving compliance.

Under Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2025 INSC 162], non-compliance violates Articles 21 and 22(1), vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand orders, and requires the court to order release, notwithstanding statutory restrictions on bail.

The Court also relied on Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel concerning effective communication of grounds and the consequences of its failure.

The Court found that the arrest memo identified the alleged offence and some particulars but did not disclose material facts, including relevant search-and-seizure circumstances, the petitioner’s alleged incriminating statement and the reasons for arrest.

In the Court’s view, the memo’s abbreviated account did not provide sufficient information for the petitioner to understand and effectively challenge his arrest or seek bail.

The prosecution’s submission that the memo contained the necessary information therefore did not establish compliance with Article 22(1).

Applying Vihaan Kumar, the Court held that the resulting constitutional violation rendered the petitioner’s custody illegal.

It allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail on a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions including daily reporting before the trial court at 10:30 a.m.