Medical examination under Section 51 BNSS is impermissible without a preceding lawful and procedurally valid arrest.

The Petitioner (Accused No. 12) was among approximately 35 individuals present at a "rave party" organized at "Ellavoma House" on the night of May 24-25, 2025

Following a police raid authorized by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, a FIR was registered against unknown persons for offenses under Sections 20(b), 22(a), 27(b), and 25 of the NDPS Act, and Sections 292, 296, 3(5), and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Petitioner was allegedly arrested and released on the same day (May 25, 2025), but police failed to prepare an arrest memo or communicate the grounds of arrest

During the purported custody, blood and urine samples were collected and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), which later tested positive for cocaine

The Petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.No.1182/2025, arguing that the arrest was illegal and the resulting medical evidence was inadmissible

Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates that for offenses punishable by less than seven years, arrest is discretionary and requires the recording of reasons in writing

Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, emphasizing that compliance with Section 35(1)(b) is a sine qua non for arrest

Section 51 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 53 of the CrPC), which permits medical examination of an accused only when they are lawfully "arrested"

Procedural safeguards for arrest established in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

The requirement to communicate grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) as interpreted in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act regarding the proof required for the offense of consumption

The Court found that since the offenses carried punishments under seven years, the police were required to justify the arrest through recorded reasons and follow the "notice over custody" principle under Section 35 BNSS, which they failed to do

The "arrest" was deemed a legal nullity because the police did not prepare an arrest memo, communicate grounds to the Petitioner, or follow the D.K. Basu guidelines

Because Section 51 of the BNSS explicitly conditions the legality of a medical examination on a valid "arrest," the extraction of the Petitioner’s blood sample without a lawful arrest was held to be an unauthorized and invasive act

The Court reasoned that the medical report was a "fruit of a poisonous tree"; since the arrest was illegal, the sample collection was vitiated, and the resulting FSL report had no evidentiary value

Without this report, and in the absence of any recovery of contraband from the Petitioner’s possession, there was no material evidence to sustain a charge of consumption under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act

The Court answered the second and third issues in the negative, ruling that a medical report derived from an illegal arrest cannot form the basis of a prosecution

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 1182 of 2025 insofar as the Petitioner (Accused No. 12) was concerned, holding that continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of the process of law