Non-supply of written grounds of arrest without demonstrable prejudice does not ipso facto entitle accused to bail.

On January 17, 2025, the Petitioner was apprehended from a flat in Kotla Mubarakpur following secret information.

A search resulted in the recovery of 1.516 kg of charas (commercial quantity).

The IO (Naveen Gurjar) sealed the contraband with the seal ‘NG’, and the SHO (Prahlad Matsaya) subsequently counter-sealed it with ‘PSM’ before depositing it in the malkhana.

The Petitioner was interrogated, during which he disclosed procuring drugs from a co-accused, Thomas, for sale in Delhi.

The Petitioner sought regular bail on two grounds: first, that discrepancies in the malkhana register regarding who deposited the parcels vitiated the recovery; and second, that his arrest was illegal due to the non-supply of written grounds of arrest.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates a "negative" burden where bail for commercial quantities requires the court’s satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS) regarding procedural requirements of arrest.

Prejudice-oriented test from State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), which holds that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest do not ipso facto render custody illegal unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.

Prospective clarification in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025) regarding the mandatory written communication of grounds of arrest.

The court found that the discrepancies in Register No. 19 were sufficiently explained by the SHO’s counter-sealing process (PSM seal) intended to maintain the purity of the seized material, thus failing to meet the "not guilty" threshold of Section 37 NDPS.

The court observed that the Petitioner was arrested in January 2025, prior to the definitive elucidation of the "written grounds" rule in Mihir Rajesh Shah (November 2025).

The court held that Paragraph 9 of the Arrest Memo, while titled "Reasons for Arrest," substantially contained the "grounds" required for the accused to understand the basis of his detention.

Applying the prejudice-oriented test, the court determined that the Petitioner suffered no prejudice as he was provided legal counsel at the first remand stage and was fully aware of the allegations.

The court emphasized that in drug trafficking cases, technical procedural lapses should not outweigh the "pernicious impact" of the trade on national security and social stability.

For Issue 2, the court held that the non-supply of written grounds did not warrant bail as the defect was curable, no prejudice was shown, and substantial compliance was met through the arrest memo and remand proceedings.

The court dismissed the bail application, concluding that the gravity of the offence and the risk of the Petitioner absconding to Nepal outweighed the procedural arguments raised.