Non-supply of written grounds of arrest to an accused violates Article 22(1), vitiating arrest and remand.

The petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2024 from Ankleshwar, Gujarat, following a raid where 518.18 kg of a substance (later identified as mephedrone) was recovered from the premises of M/s Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd.

The petitioner, a marketing consultant, had facilitated a job-work agreement between Aavkar Drugs and Pharma Solution Services.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Section 483 of the BNSS, primarily on the ground that he was never served with written "grounds of arrest" at the time of arrest or prior to his production for remand.

The State opposed bail, alleging the petitioner was a key member of an international drug cartel and argued that the requirement for written grounds was prospective under the Mihir Rajesh Shah verdict.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest.

Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which established that "grounds of arrest" must be communicated in writing.

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which held that grounds must be served no later than two hours prior to production before a Magistrate.

Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, which applied these protections retrospectively to arrests made before the Mihir verdict.

The court found that the petitioner’s arrest stood on the same footing as his co-accused, Brijesh Kothia, whose arrest was previously held vitiated.

The court observed that the petitioner’s arrest memo contained only generic "reasons" rather than person-specific "grounds".

The court rejected the State’s argument that the written requirement was only prospective, noting that Dr. Rajinder Rajan applied the Mihir dictum to arrests as early as May 2025, reinforcing that Article 22(1) is a pre-existing constitutional right.

Since the transit and police custody remand applications were not served on the petitioner at least two hours prior to the hearing, he was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel and challenge the legality of his detention.

The court noted the petitioner’s long incarceration (over 1.5 years) and satisfactory jail conduct.

The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted regular bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000, surrendering his passport, and other standard conditions.

The court clarified that while the arrest was vitiated for bail purposes, the underlying investigation and the State's power to effect a fresh, lawful arrest remained unaffected.