Mandatory written communication of grounds of arrest applies prospectively and does not invalidate prior arrests.

The petitioners were arrested on October 20, 2024, in connection with Baunsuni PS Case No. 154 of 2024 for the alleged possession of 100 Kgs of contraband Ganja.

They sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, primarily contending that their detention was illegal due to the non-communication of written grounds of arrest by the police.

1. Whether the requirement to communicate written grounds of arrest applies retrospectively to arrests made prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act considering the quantity of contraband seized.

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates a "dual satisfaction" test for bail involving commercial quantities: that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

It relied on the precedent set in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, which interpreted Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS) to require written communication of grounds of arrest.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah specifically used the word "henceforth," indicating that the mandate for written communication of arrest grounds applies prospectively from the date of that judgment, November 6, 2025. Since the petitioners were arrested on October 20, 2024, the rule did not apply to their case.

The Court observed that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the lack of written grounds and had not raised this objection during their initial forwarding.

Regarding the merits of the bail plea, the Court found that the seizure of 100 Kgs of Ganja constituted a commercial quantity, triggering the restrictive provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court determined that the materials on record did not justify a finding that the petitioners were not guilty or that they would not recidivate.

The bail application was rejected, and the petition was disposed of.