Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest does not warrant bail if arrest preceded prospective application of governing precedent.

The petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2025 following a police search near Thousand Lights, Chennai, which resulted in the recovery of 22.445 kgs of ganja (commercial quantity) from bags in his possession

The petitioner was charged under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985

This is the petitioner’s fifth bail application

The petitioner argued that he was not furnished with the grounds of arrest, procedures under Section 52A regarding sampling were violated, and he was not properly informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer under Section 50

1. Whether the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest at the time of remand in April 2025 entitles the petitioner to bail

2. Whether procedural irregularities in seizure and sampling under Section 52A of the NDPS Act vitiate the prosecution

3. Whether the absence of the accused’s signature on the search notice/mahazar invalidates the search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that for commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra regarding the prospective application of the rule for furnishing grounds of arrest

NCB v. Kashif, which distinguishes between "irregular proceedings" and "illegal proceedings," holding that procedural delays are irregularities that do not nullify prosecution

The Constitution Bench decisions in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, establishing that Section 50 requires a suspect to be "informed" of their rights, but this information need not be in writing or a specific format

The court rejected the plea regarding grounds of arrest, noting that the arrest occurred before the Supreme Court's mandate in Mihir Rajesh Shah, which operates prospectively, and the petitioner failed to raise this in four prior bail petitions

Regarding Section 52A, the court followed the Kashif precedent, determining that alleged delays or discrepancies in sampling were merely procedural irregularities and not fatal illegalities

On the issue of the search, the court found that P.W.1’s testimony confirmed the petitioner was orally informed of his right to a Gazetted Officer; per Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the absence of a signature on a written notice does not invalidate the search if the suspect was made aware of the right

The court observed the petitioner's 31 previous cases as a factor reinforcing the rigour of Section 37

It held that the petitioner failed to overcome the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the procedural defenses raised did not establish a reasonable possibility of acquittal

The court affirmed that procedural irregularities under Section 52A do not entitle an accused to bail in cases involving commercial quantities, especially when the accused has significant criminal antecedents