Madras HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Possessing 25 Suspected LSD Blots After Arrest Memo Failed To Fully Convey Grounds Of Arrest

The petitioner was arrayed as A1 in an NCB case under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 28 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that he and a co-accused disclosed during an NCB enquiry that they had procured and concealed 25 blots suspected to contain LSD; the substance was recovered and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

He challenged the remand, contending that the grounds of arrest had not been properly communicated to him.

The arrest memo referred to procuring, possessing and trafficking the substance, but the Court found that it omitted material particulars, including details concerning the search and seizure and the petitioner’s statement.

Article 22(1) requires that a person arrested be informed of the grounds of arrest in a manner that effectively communicates sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting those grounds, in a language the person understands; the information must enable meaningful exercise of the right to consult counsel and challenge the arrest.

Relying on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2025 INSC 162], and the principles in Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, the Court stated that the burden of proving compliance rests on the investigating agency; breach of Article 22(1) violates Articles 21 and 22, vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand orders, and may require release notwithstanding statutory restrictions on bail.

Section 528 of the BNSS was invoked as the provision under which the petition was filed.

The Court assessed whether the arrest memo gave the petitioner sufficient particulars to understand and contest the basis of his arrest.

Although it identified the alleged offence and the substance involved, the Court considered it a short-form account that omitted material facts, including details of the search and seizure and the petitioner’s statement.

In the Court’s view, those omissions meant the memo did not effectively communicate the grounds or enable the petitioner to defend against the remand and seek bail; the constitutional requirement was therefore not met.

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 specified conditions, including daily reporting before the trial court at 10:30 a.m. until further orders.