Communication of Grounds of Arrest Need Not Be in Writing in Every Case: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail to Foreign National in NDPS Case

“Mere absence of written grounds does not render arrest illegal — substantial compliance is sufficient unless demonstrable prejudice is shown” — In a significant ruling dealing with the rights of arrested foreign nationals under the NDPS Act and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court on October 27, 2025, dismissed the bail plea of a Ghanaian national arrested for possession of a commercial quantity of MDMA.

The Court, presided by Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, held that compliance with Article 22(1), Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act is not vitiated merely because the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing, so long as the accused is made aware of them and is not prejudiced in any manner.

The petitioner, Owusu Collinus, had sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS / Section 439 CrPC, claiming that his arrest was illegal due to non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest. However, the Court found that the procedural requirements had been substantially complied with and, given the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail could not be granted.

“Substantial Compliance with Arrest Communication Requirements is Sufficient”

No Prejudice Caused to the Petitioner; Bail Rejected Due to Section 37 NDPS Bar

The petitioner was arrested on May 1, 2025, and was allegedly found in possession of 416 grams of MDMA, which qualifies as commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

It was argued by the petitioner that his fundamental right under Article 22(1) was violated since the grounds of arrest were not given in writing, and that Section 47 of BNSS and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act require such communication. Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the petitioner contended that the arrest was vitiated and bail should be granted.

However, the High Court drew a clear distinction based on facts, observing that unlike the cases cited, there was no demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner in the present matter. The Court held:

“The arrest memo and remand records clearly reflect that the petitioner was aware of the reasons for his arrest. He affixed his signature and left thumb impression after the arrest was explained to him in English. The arrest was also communicated to his friend.” [Para 18–19]

Noting that the petitioner had immediately filed for bail, the Court held that this itself indicated that he was aware of the charges against him, and no violation of his constitutional rights had occurred.

Distinction Drawn from Pankaj Bansal and Other Precedents

The High Court examined the Supreme Court's rulings in Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Ashish Kakkar, which had stressed the mandatory nature of providing written grounds of arrest, and clarified that:

“The procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.” [Para 19]

Relying on the Supreme Court’s more recent clarification in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, the High Court emphasized:

“Neither Article 22(1) nor Section 50 CrPC (now Section 47 BNSS) requires that the grounds must always be communicated in writing. Substantial compliance is sufficient unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.” [Para 20.1.3]

NDPS Bail Restrictions Apply Fully — Reverse Burden Not Discharged

Turning to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court reiterated that bail in cases involving commercial quantity cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that:

1. The accused is not guilty of the offence;

2. The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Given that the petitioner was caught red-handed in possession of commercial quantity of MDMA, the Court found no basis to believe that he was not guilty or posed no risk of reoffending.

“There are no grounds to hold that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence. The contraband has been confirmed as MDMA in commercial quantity. The restrictions under Section 37 of NDPS Act clearly apply.” [Para 7]

The petitioner also failed to rebut the reverse burden of proof under the NDPS Act.

“Opening a Pandora’s Box”: High Court Cautions Against Rigid Application of Written Grounds Rule in Every Case

The Court echoed the concern expressed in its previous decision in John Moses D @ Madan Kumar v. State of Karnataka:

“If grounds of arrest are to be furnished in writing in every cognizable offence, it would open a Pandora’s box and mushroom huge litigation before constitutional courts.” [Para 22]

It observed that routine arrests across 20,000+ police stations cannot all be held invalid merely due to absence of written communication, as long as the accused is made aware of the reasons for arrest and there is no prejudice caused.

Bail Denied — No Violation of Article 22(1) or Procedural Mandates

Summing up its findings, the Karnataka High Court concluded: “The mandate in Section 47(1) of BNSS and Section 52(1) of NDPS Act that the accused should be informed of the grounds of arrest has been complied with. The petitioner was aware of grounds of arrest and he immediately made bail application before the Special Court by engaging counsel.” [Para 23]

The petition was dismissed, and bail was denied, in light of the seriousness of the offence and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: October 27, 2025