Non-Supply of Written Grounds of Arrest Vitiates Custody: Delhi HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case

The Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that the failure of investigating agencies to provide written grounds of arrest to an accused at the time of detention or within a mandated temporal window constitutes a substantive constitutional violation, entitling the person to be set at liberty.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted regular bail to an accused allegedly involved in an international drug trafficking syndicate, noting that the procedural safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 are sacrosanct and not merely directory. The bench emphasized that the mandate for serving written grounds of arrest flows directly from the Constitution and is applicable even to arrests made prior to recent clarificatory rulings by the Apex Court.

Constitutional Safeguards and the Mandate of Written Grounds

The court observed that the requirement of informing an arrestee of the specific grounds for their arrest is a substantive safeguard of personal liberty. It noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and judicial precedents like Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors. ( "(2024) 7 SCC 576": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 603) and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) ( "(2024) 8 SCC 254": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 73) have solidified the rule that such grounds must be communicated in writing in a language understood by the arrestee.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...non-supply of written grounds of arrest within the stipulated window of time vitiates the arrest and remand, and entitles the arrestee to be released on bail, though without nullifying the investigation or trial of the case... where the police are in possession of documentary material forming a cogent basis for arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest, or at the very least, within a reasonable time, and in no event later than 02 hours prior to his production before the Magistrate for remand proceedings, failing which the arrest would be rendered illegal and the arrestee is entitled to be set free."

Court's Directions on Release and Compliance

Recognizing the constitutional infraction, the High Court directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail. The Court has the following directions:

"31.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with 02 sureties in the like amount from family members, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;

31.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer/S.H.O., Special Cell, Delhi, a cellphone number on which he may be contacted at any time, and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched?on at all times;

31.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of the learned trial court;

31.4. The petitioner shall not contact, visit, or offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case;

31.5. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and

31.6. In case of any change in his residential address or contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the Investigating Officer in writing."

Background:

The petitioner was arrested on October 13, 2024, following a raid at the premises of Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. in Gujarat, where a large quantity of suspected mephedrone was recovered. He was charged under Sections 8, 20, 21, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and later under Sections 22 and 27A of the same Act, alongside Sections 238B and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arrest was illegal as no written "grounds of arrest" were supplied at the time of detention or before the transit remand application was moved in Gujarat. Reliance was placed on Brijesh Kothia vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. to argue that the failure to provide written grounds at least two hours before production before a Magistrate vitiates the custody. The State opposed the bail, citing Karan Singh vs. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 818), arguing that the requirement for written grounds was prospective and that the petitioner belonged to a high-profile drug cartel. However, the High Court noted that in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court applied this necessity to earlier arrests, reinforcing that the mandate is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Case Details:
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 4028/2025
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR MASURIYA vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SPECIAL CELL
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikram Hegde with Mr. Abhinav Hansaraman, Mr. Trishan D., Mr. Amit Dwivedi, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP with Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Ms. Krishna Mohan Maurya, Ms. Lisa Pegwal, Mr. Apoorv Paliya, Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocates; SI Vipin Malik, P.S.: Special Cell.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 390