1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in connection with Crime No.613 of 2026 of P.S. Vanasthalipuram, Malkajgiri Commissionerate. The offence alleged against the petitioner-A2 is punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(C), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
2. Heard Sri S.Chandrashekhar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner-A2 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner-A2, he has been implicated in the crime based on the confession of co-accused-A1, there is no specific overt act or allegation against the petitioner-A2. Total contraband is seized from the possession of A1 which is evident from the remand report dated 04.04.2026 and seizure panchanama dated 03.04.2026. Police has illegally detained the petitioner-A2 and took his signatures forcibly on self-confessional statements before the police which were written by the respondent. Confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has no evidentiary value. Respondent-Police has not informed the grounds of arrest to the petitioner-A2, which are to be in writing that too in the language understood by the petitioner-A2. Police has violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner-A2 is in judicial custody since 17.04.2026 almost 140 days is completed. Wife of the petitioner-A2 was pregnant during his remand and she gave birth to a baby, there is no one to take care of her and the baby, due to the frustration she attempted suicide and jumped into a well. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner-A2 would cause irreversible prejudice to his wife and baby. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2025 INSC 162) (2) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 INSC 1288) (3) M.Eshwar Vs. The State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No.13695 of 2026 dated 01.09.2026 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.) (4) Anubhav Saxena Vs. The State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No.7202 of 2024 dated 08.08.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.) and prayed to allow the petition.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the role played by the petitioner-A2 is depicted in the remand case diary and the petitioner-A2 has not raised about furnishing of grounds of arrest in his earlier bail petition, he is estopped from raising so and furthermore petitioner-A2 has not shown any prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend the case to render the arrest illegal and relied on the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc., (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801).
5. J.Gautham, S.I. of Police has lodged a report before P.S. Vanasthalipuram on 03.04.2026 stating that he received credible information regarding one person transporting MDMA in a bag and the same will be delivered to other person near Dear Park, Auto Nagar, Vanasthalipuram. From A1-Anopa Ram, the contraband seized is 97.18 grams of MDMA.
6. A1-Anopa Ram was arrested on 03.04.2026 at 2045 hours and was produced before the concerned Magistrate on 04.04.2026. It is stated in the remand case diary of A1 that A2-Raghunath Ram (petitioner herein) is absconding (supplier cum peddler) and A3-Abdhul Rahman @ Ali is also absconding (receiver).
7. Petitioner-A2 was arrested on 15.04.2026 at 1100 hours in Rajasthan State and he was brought to the concerned Court on transit warrant on 17.04.2026 and was produced before the concerned Magistrate, since then he is in judicial remand. It is mentioned in the remand case diary of the petitioner-A2 that A3-Abdhul Rahman @ Ali is still absconding who is a receiver.
8. Petitioner-A2 has filed Crl.M.P.663 of 2026 in Crime No.613 of 2026 for grant of bail and the grounds raised in the bail application are that the petitioner-A2 is innocent, police has completed the investigation. The learned Sessions Judge by considering the material on record observed that petitioner-A2 is alleged to be the main supplier, conspirator and organiser in the commission of the offence who facilitated illegal transportation of contraband from Rajasthan to Hyderabad through other accused and the contraband seized is commercial quantity far exceeds the notified limit.
9. Petitioner-A2 has filed another bail application before the District Court vide Crl.M.P.No.740 of 2026 that his wife is pregnant and he has not committed any offence. The learned Sessions Court while considering the material on record has dismissed the bail application on 21.05.2026 stating that bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted.
10.1. In Vihaan Kumar, the Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.21(b) and 21(d) which reads as under:
“(b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;
(d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);”
10.2. In Mihir Rajesh Shah2, the Supreme Court observed at Para No.52 as under:
“52. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the Magistrate”.
10.3. In M.Eshwar, this Court observed that written grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused which itself is sufficient that he is entitled to be set at liberty on bail.
10.4. In Anubhav Saxena, this Court granted regular bail to the accused he has been implicated on the confessional statement of the co-accused.
11. Remand case diary of A1 goes to show that petitioner-A2 is the supplier cum peddler and on 01.04.2026 petitioner-A2 has called A1, met him and handed over three packets of MDMA drug and told him to transport the same to Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
12. On perusal of the remand report of the petitioner-A2 which states that the petitioner-A2 has instructed A1 to deliver the drug at the location and assured payment of Rs.10,000/- on successful completion of the task.
13. In Sri Darshan Etc., the Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.20.1 to 20.1.5 and 20.1.7 which reads as under:
“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 BNSS). 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 INSC 162, 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.
20.1.7. 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.
14. Petitioner-A2 has not raised the contention that grounds of arrest were not furnished to him at the time of his remand nor in the two bail applications filed by him before the District Court. For the first time he is raising the said contention but he has failed to produce any material to show that it has demonstrably prejudiced or denied of a fair opportunity to defend the case.
15. The decision in Sri Darshan is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
16. The decisions cited by the petitioner counsel in Para Nos.10.3 and 10.4 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, thus the ratio of those cases would not apply to the case on hand.
17. Material placed on record goes to show that petitioner-A2 is the supplier cum peddler and specific overt acts are attributed against him with regard to the mode and manner in which the offence has taken place. Petitioner-A2 met A1-Anopa Ram on 01.04.2026 and handed over two packets of MDMA (Psychotropic substance) weighed about 70 grams and unknown drug weighed about 95 grams. Rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted.
18. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
