1. This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.253/2024 registered at Police Station - Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 20(B) of NDPS Act. Applicant is in custody since 09.06.2025.

2. As per prosecution story, it is alleged from the possession of the applicant total 45 kg 400 grams Ganja has been seized. Therefore, aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that during the arrest of the applicant, he was not communicated ground of arrest. There is violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and detention is illegal on this ground also, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Applicant is in custody since 09.06.2025. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025), Prabir Purkaystha Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), INSC 414, Vihan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana and Anr, 2005 INNSC 162, Pankaj Bansasl Vs. UOI and Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576, Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel VS. Union of India & Ors, (1981) 2 SCC 427, and two other orders of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the cases of Noushad and another Vs. State of Kerala and another passed in Bail Application No.11965/2025 and Noushad Vs. State of Kerala passed in Bail Application No.7156/2025. Trial will take time to conclude, hence, it is prayed that applicant may be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submitted that applicant was arrested on 09.06.2025 and thereafter he was produced before before the Court designated for hearing the cases under the NDPS Act on 04.06.2025.

5. It is further submitted by Government Advocate that Police received the secret information that in the house of applicant, huge amount of contraband is kept. Thereafter, police reached the house of applicant. On intervening night of 03.06.2025 and 04.06.2025 at 02:30 am, applicant was informed of the suspicion of the possession of the narcotic drug. On 04.06.2025 at 02:30 am, applicant was apprised of his rights under Section 50 of NDPS Act to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The applicant gave his written consent to be searched by the Police Officer. Upon search, contraband substance suspected to be "Ganja" was recovered and measured in front of the applicant total weight of contraband was found to be 45 kg 400 grams. Seizure and sampling was done and all seals signed by Investigating Officer, witnesses and accused. Seizure memo was prepared on the spot and witnessed by independent person. On 04.06.2025 at 02:30 am, arrest memo was prepared and reasons were explained to the applicant. Applicant was arrested on 09.06.2025. Samples were kept separately for FSL examination. FIR was registered against the applicant. Report of arrest and seizure was prepared and forwarded to Circle Officer/SP. On 04.06.2025, applicant was produced before the Court designated for hearing the cases under the NDPS Act along with remand application.

6. It is further submitted that applicant was having knowledge of his arrest and he was well aware of the fact that contraband has been seized from the house and measured in front of him. In this regard, video is available. The intention behind furnishing the ground of arrest is that accused should know why he is being arrested. In this case, applicant was well aware that contraband articles has been seized from his possession and he knows the consequences of possessing such contraband articles. When applicant was arrested, police has informed him that for which offence he has been arrested. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant in the aforesaid cases of is not applicable in this case as the facts and circumstances of this case different from the aforesaid cited cases. It is submitted that applicant knew that why he has been arrested therefore at the time of deciding the bail application before the trial Court, the question regarding ground of arrest was not raised by the applicant. Applicant has criminal record of two other cases. Contraband of commercial quantity was recovered from the house of applicant, hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Concededly, the alleged recovery made from the applicant is commercial quantity (45 kg 400 grams Ganja). Therefore, embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act would be attracted against him. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal: 2022 SCC Online SC 891, while explaining the meaning of reasonable grounds under Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act, has held as under:

          "14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds" used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail."

9. In the case of Union of India v. Prateek Shukla: (2021) 5 SCC 430 as well as State v. Lokesh Chadha: (2021) 5 SCC 724, it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act have to be applied strictly at the time of deciding bail application of an accused.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant at the time of his arrest and thus, he should be granted bail, is also unmerited. It is to be noted that in the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act served upon the applicant, it was specifically mentioned that the raiding team was in receipt of information that applicant had kept 45 kg 400 grams Ganja in his house. Further, in the seizure memo prepared at the spot, the details of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband were mentioned. Both these documents bear the signature of the applicant. Thus, prima facie, it cannot be held that the applicant herein was not made aware as to why and on what ground he had been arrested in this case. This Court's attention has also been drawn to the judgment dated 14.08.2025 of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan: 2025 INSC 979 wherein it has been held as under:

          "78. The final word: The true test to ascertain whether discretion has been judiciously exercised or not is to see whether the court has been able to strike a balance between the personal liberty of the accused and the interest of the State, in other words, the societal interests. Each bail application should be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the various factors germane to the well settled principles of grant or refusal of bail. In the words of Philip Stanhope, "Judgment is not upon all occasions required, but discretion always is.

          79. In the result all these appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders of bail passed by the High Court are hereby set aside.

20. In the present case, the High Court, by the impugned order, enlarged the respondents on bail, primarily relying on a set of factual and legal findings. However, a closer examination of these findings reveals serious infirmities that warranting interference. We shall discuss the same in detail.

          20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.

          20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents - accused contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C (now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). This submission, however, is devoid of merit.

          20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that "no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice". Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that "every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

          20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest - but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.

          20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 2025 SCC Online SC 456, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 768. , it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.

          20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.

          20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in the remand orders about service of memo of grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest memos were allegedly template-based and not personalised (para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated that they were present at the time of arrest or had signed the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India ((2024) 7 SCC 576) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 - 50) that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed, written, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately after arrest was a violation entitling the accused to bail.

          20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.

          20.2. Courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage."

11. On due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is found that applicant was aware that contraband articles "Ganja" has been seized from his possession and he knows the consequences of possessing contraband articles. Police has also informed applicant that for which offence he has been arrested. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. Huge quantity of 45 kg 400 grams Ganja has been seized from the house of applicant. Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

12. Accordingly, this MCRC stands dismissed.