Failure To Furnish Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Illegal, Entitles Accused To Bail In NDPS Case: Supreme Court

Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that failing to supply written grounds of arrest to an accused renders the arrest illegal and entitles them to immediate release, while dealing with a bail plea under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that supplying these grounds in writing is "the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Two medical professionals operating a corporate hospital in Amritsar were arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau following the recovery of a sealed consignment of 2000 Tramadol tablets from their premises. The doctors claimed the excess quantity was a supply-side error by the manufacturer and that a return process was already underway before the raid occurred. They approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected their regular bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The primary question before the court was whether the failure of the arresting officer to furnish written grounds of arrest to the accused vitiates the arrest and entitles them to be released on bail. The court was also called upon to determine whether an arrest memo stating that grounds were merely "orally explained" fulfills the constitutional mandate.

Written Grounds Of Arrest Are A Constitutional Mandate

The court underscored that supplying the grounds of arrest to an accused in writing is an absolute necessity under the Constitution. It noted that this must be done before the arrest or, in highly exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter. The bench emphasised that this procedural safeguard is deeply embedded in the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen.

"It is no longer res integra that supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional guarantees."

Template Arrest Memos Do Not Fulfil Legal Requirements

Addressing the specific arrest memo produced by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the bench observed that it was prepared in a standard template format. The court noted that the memo merely contained a generic statement asserting that the arresting officer had explained the grounds of arrest to the accused prior to taking them into custody. The bench rejected the prosecution's argument that this oral communication, coupled with mentioning case details in the memo, satisfied the legal requirements.

Strict Compliance With Prior Supreme Court Guidelines

The court heavily relied upon its earlier landmark decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which laid down strict guidelines for communicating grounds of arrest. The bench pointed out that since the arrest memo itself reflected only an oral explanation, the arresting officer was legally obligated to provide a separate written memo of the grounds. The court stated that this written communication must be supplied promptly to ensure the accused is aware of the exact allegations.

"Consequently, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to have supplied the memo of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused two hours prior to producing them before the Magistrate as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah."

Statutory Reports Cannot Substitute Constitutional Duties

The judges firmly rejected the Additional Solicitor General's reliance on the compliance report forwarded under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. The court clarified that mentioning the oral explanation of grounds in an internal department report does not cure the defect of failing to provide written grounds directly to the arrestee. The bench reiterated that the gravity of the offences alleged under Sections 8, 22, and 67 of the NDPS Act cannot override fundamental constitutional mandates.

Non-Compliance Leads To Immediate Release

Because the investigating agency failed to follow this mandatory written follow-up procedure, the court declared the continued custody of the appellants to be unsustainable in law. The bench concluded that giving the appellants the benefit of the established legal ratio was the only lawful course of action. The court noted that when such fundamental deviations occur, the arrestee must be set free.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court orders rejecting the regular bail pleas. The court directed that the appellants be released on bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds and complying with any other conditions deemed fit by the trial court.

Date of Decision: 01 April 2026