Mandatory written grounds of arrest apply prospectively; bail requires demonstrating prejudice from procedural lapses.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the non-furnishing of written "grounds of arrest" at the time of arrest/remand constitutes a violation of constitutional safeguards that automatically entitles the accused to bail

The court held

The court dismissed all bail petitions, holding that the non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest did not entitle the petitioners to bail as their arrests predated the mandatory prospective timeline set by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah

It also directed

The court further held that the petitioners failed to meet the rigorous twin conditions for bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe they were not guilty of the offenses involving commercial quantities

All Criminal Original Petitions were dismissed

01Facts

Six separate criminal original petitions for bail were filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by accused persons charged under various sections of the NDPS Act involving commercial quantities of narcotics (Ganja and Heroin)

pp. 1-5

The petitioners were arrested on various dates between June 2023 and October 2024

p. 5

In all instances, the "arrest memo" was served, but the "grounds of arrest" were not furnished in writing at the time of arrest or remand

p. 6

Most petitioners had previously filed bail applications that were dismissed without this specific legal plea being raised

pp. 5-6

The arrests generally occurred following interceptions where petitioners were caught in the act of transporting or concealing contraband (flagrante delicto)

pp. 19-21

02Issues

i.1. Whether the non-furnishing of written "grounds of arrest" at the time of arrest/remand constitutes a violation of constitutional safeguards that automatically entitles the accused to bail

p. 6

ii.2. Whether the requirement of mandatory written communication of grounds of arrest applies retrospectively to arrests made prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra

pp. 17-18

iii.3. Whether the accused must demonstrate "prejudice" resulting from the non-furnishing of written grounds to render the arrest or continued custody illegal

pp. 9-11

03Law Applied

The court primarily relied on Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 50 of the CrPC), regarding the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest

pp. 8-9

It applied the "prejudice-oriented test" established in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), which holds that procedural lapses do not ipso facto render an arrest illegal unless demonstrable prejudice is shown

pp. 9-10

The court followed the prospective application of the Pankaj Bansal (2024) ratio as clarified in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement

p. 13

Most significantly, it relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026), which held that in flagrante delicto cases, immediate written grounds may be impracticable and that the mandatory procedure for written grounds governs arrests only from the date of that judgment, i.e., 06.11.2025

pp. 17-18

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 20 Section 22 Section 23 Section 25 Section 28 Section 29 Section 37

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 47

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 50

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that the purpose of furnishing grounds of arrest is to enable the accused to defend themselves and seek bail

p. 15

However, it found that the petitioners did not suffer any prejudice because they were caught in the act of transporting commercial quantities of drugs, which indicated they were "consciously aware" of the basis for their arrest

pp. 19-21

The court noted that the petitioners had filed multiple previous bail applications without raising this grievance, suggesting no impediment to their legal defense existed

p. 22

The court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah balanced constitutional safeguards against the practicalities of law enforcement, ruling that the strict requirement for written grounds in all cases (including flagrante delicto) is prospective from November 6, 2025

pp. 17-18

Since all petitioners in these cases were arrested prior to that date, the procedural lapse did not entitle them to release

pp. 18-19, 23