Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court

"In Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that inadequacy of grounds of arrest would confer rights to seek bail, but only prospectively, namely from 06.11.2025," Madras High Court, in a significant order dated May 13, 2026, held that the legal right to seek bail on the grounds of non-furnishing of "grounds of arrest" can only be exercised prospectively for arrests made after November 6, 2025.

A single-judge bench of Justice C. Kumarappan observed that since the petitioners were arrested in 2024, they could not rely on recent Supreme Court precedents regarding the inadequacy of arrest grounds to overcome the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The Court emphasized that for arrests prior to the Supreme Court's clarification in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the mere handing over of arrest memos was the prevailing practice.

The case originated from the interception of a vehicle by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on June 20, 2024, which led to the recovery of 2.700 kilograms of Methamphetamine (Ice). The petitioners, Mohammed Noog Musharaf A.R (A3) and Md. Rafishah (A4), were subsequently arrested on June 22, 2024, and November 9, 2024, respectively. They approached the High Court seeking bail primarily on the grounds of procedural irregularities during their arrest and recovery.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail due to the alleged non-furnishing of "grounds of arrest" as mandated by recent Supreme Court rulings. The court was also called upon to determine if the absence of CCTV recordings during recovery and the grant of bail to a co-accused entitled the petitioners to similar relief under the principles of parity.

Commercial Quantity Triggers Section 37 Rigour

The Court began by noting that the recovered contraband, totaling 2.700 kilograms of Methamphetamine, clearly falls within the definition of a "commercial quantity." Consequently, the Court observed that the stringent "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely applicable. The bench noted that the petitioners failed to place any material that would allow the Court to form a reasonable belief that they were not guilty of the offences.

Prospective Application Of Ruling On Grounds Of Arrest

Addressing the core argument regarding the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi). However, the Court highlighted a critical temporal limitation established in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. The bench noted that while the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between "arrest memos" and "grounds of arrest," it restricted the right to seek bail on this basis to arrests made after November 6, 2025.

"Since the present arrests were prior thereto, the grounds urged by the petitioners are of no avail to them."

Distinction Between Bail Jurisprudence And Preventive Detention

The petitioners had relied on Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India and Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra to argue that the failure to communicate grounds of arrest vitiates the detention. Justice Kumarappan distinguished these precedents, observing that they arose in the specific context of preventive detention orders rather than standard bail matters. The Court held that these rulings carry no weight in bail jurisprudence, especially in light of the specific prospective clarification provided in the Mihir Rajesh Shah judgment.

Absence Of CCTV Not Fatal Without Specific Court Direction

The Court also dealt with the contention that the recovery proceedings were not videographed, relying on the case of Ragul Rahaman v. NCB. The bench clarified that the Ragul Rahaman ruling was based on a specific prior direction from the Calcutta High Court to undertake videography, which the agency had failed to follow. In the present case, no such direction existed, and the Court reiterated that such technical objections cannot be entertained at the bail stage when dealing with commercial quantities of narcotics.

Plea Of Parity Rejected For Ignoring Binding Precedent

Regarding the plea of parity with co-accused Abdul Gaffar (A2), who was previously granted bail, the Court found the argument unsustainable. The bench observed that the order granting bail to A2 had not taken into account the Supreme Court's ruling on the prospective application of the "grounds of arrest" doctrine. The Court held that a petitioner cannot seek parity based on a judicial order that failed to consider a binding Supreme Court restriction regarding the date of arrest.

"The petitioners cannot seek parity based upon the order passed against the co-accused... the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case, which mandated prospective application, was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge."

No Evidence Of Illegal Detention Beyond 24 Hours

Finally, the Court dismissed the allegation that the petitioners were detained for more than 24 hours prior to their formal arrest. Upon perusing the summons and the record of voluntary statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the Court found no evidence of pre-arrest detention. The bench noted that both petitioners were produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of their recorded arrest times, thus maintaining the legality of the remand.

The High Court concluded that since the petitioners were dealing with a commercial quantity of drugs, the legal bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act remained insurmountable. Finding no procedural illegality that could bypass the prospective timeline set by the Supreme Court, the Court dismissed both bail petitions.

Date of Decision: 13 May 2026