Man Accused Of 31.2g Etizolam Possession Gets Bail Despite NDPS Commercial-Quantity Bar: P&H HC Cites Missing Written Arrest Grounds

The petitioner sought regular bail in an NDPS case arising from the recovery of 235 tablets containing Etizolam, weighing 31.2 grams—a commercial quantity.

This was his third bail petition; the earlier two had been dismissed as withdrawn.

He argued that the police had not supplied or separately communicated the grounds of arrest to him. The State did not dispute that the grounds had not been furnished at arrest or communicated separately in writing.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest; Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act imposes a corresponding statutory requirement.

Relying on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 AIR SC 5554, the Court noted the requirement to communicate grounds in writing in a language understood by the arrestee, subject to the prescribed procedure and timing; non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

It also relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, which holds that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and remand, and that established violations of Articles 21 and 22 may justify bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions.

The Court noted that Mihir Rajesh Shah applied prospectively, but treated the constitutional requirement as affirmed in Vihaan Kumar.

The State’s status report expressly acknowledged that the investigating officer had neither furnished the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest nor communicated them separately in writing. The Court therefore found a breach of Article 22(1) and Section 52(1), vitiating the arrest and continued custody.

Filing a charge sheet did not cure that breach, and the earlier withdrawn bail petitions did not validate it.

Because the violation of fundamental rights was established, the Court held that Section 37’s restriction did not prevent it from granting bail.

Bail was subject to conditions concerning non-interference with witnesses or evidence, travel, disclosure and verification of addresses and financial particulars, notice of changes to contact details, and attendance at trial.

The Court made no determination on the merits of the prosecution case.