The court ruled that failure to timely communicate grounds of arrest violates constitutional rights, rendering subsequent detention illegal; the accused did not prove entitlement to bail given the nature of the offence and ongoing investigation.

ORDER :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.159/2025 of Ashoknagar Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would contend that, the search has been conducted after sunset and before sunrise and grounds of belief are not recorded as contained in proviso to Section 42 of NDPS Act. The authorization of the superior Officer as required under sub- Section (2) of Section 41 of NDPS Act has not been obtained. The contents are weighed including the ziplock. The currency notes were not found with the petitioner from sale of Contraband. The petitioner has been taken into custody at 11:35 p.m. and he has not been informed the grounds of arrest as required under Section 52 of NDPS Act. In the remand application, the arrest of the petitioner has been shown at 4.00 a.m. Sri. Manjappa, Police Inspector who conducted the raid has not informed the grounds of arrest. The inventory has not been conducted in the presence of the petitioner/accused. The qualitative and quantitative test reports have not been obtained within time as contained in Rule 14 of NDPS (Seizure Storage Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. The two wheeler does not belong to the petitioner. The purchasers have not been identified. There are no previous cases against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since last five (5) months. As the quantitative test report has not been obtained, at this stage, it cannot be said that, quantity seized is commercial quantity to attract rigour of sub-Section 1(b) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

4. On the above grounds, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:

i) SARIJA BAND VS. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR reported in 2004 SUPREME (SC) 257

ii) AHMED MANSOOR VS. STATE OF T.N. by Supreme Court decision In CRL.A.4505/2025

iii) VIHAAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2025)5 SCC 799

iv) DHANANJAYA BELCHADA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA unreported decision of KARNATAKA HIGH COURT in CRL.A NO.246/2016

v) PRABIR PURKAYASTHA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in 2024 SUPREME (SC) 463

vi) BHARATH CHAUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2021)20 SCC 50

vii) NAGARAJ J @ WILSON GARDEN NAGA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 4319

viii) BHARAT AAMBALE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARDH reported in (2025) 8 SCC 452

ix) RUSHAB SHARMIK MASTRULAL VS. STATE reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10526

x) STATE OF W.B. VS. BABU CHAKRABORTHY reported in (2004) 12 SCC 201

xi) JIRIMIYA MAJHI VS. STATE BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA in CRL.P. NO.1380/2024.

On the above grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent would contend that, the FSL report of contraband seized has been obtained and it is positive for MDMA and the quantity seized is a commercial quantity. The quantity seized is worth Rs.4,00,000/-. The investigation is in progress, the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for ten (10) years and it may extend to twenty (20) years. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of him hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses and committing similar offence. With these, he prayed to reject the petition.

6. Having heard the learned Senior Counse