Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Amit Kumar Masuriya - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Special Cell - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 4028 of 2025, CRL.M.A. 34186 of 2025 &CRL.M.A.
36707 of 2025
Decided On : 29-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Constitutional Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Constitutional law - Right to personal liberty - The requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest is a substantive constitutional safeguard - Failure to provide specific, written grounds of arrest at least two hours prior to production before a Magistrate violates fundamental rights, rendering arrest and subsequent remand proceedings procedurally invalid. (Paras 10, 11, 30.1, 30.4)
(C) Bail - Regular bail - Procedural irregularities - Breach of the constitutional mandate regarding the communication of arrest grounds constitutes sufficient cause to grant liberty even in non-bailable offenses, provided the arrestee has otherwise maintained satisfactory custodial conduct and investigation remains ongoing. (Paras 30.5, 30.7, 30.8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with alleged involvement in a narcotics manufacturing and distribution chain. The petitioner challenged the legality of his detention on the grounds that the investigating agency failed to provide written, specific grounds for his arrest at the time of detention or within a reasonable time before his production before the Magistrate for remand. The prosecution contested this, arguing that the failure was a minor procedural irregularity and that statutory requirements for written notification were satisfied by the overall documentation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the mandatory requirement of supplying written grounds of arrest applies to the detention and whether non-compliance with this mandate vitiates the order of remand and warrants the grant of bail.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the failure to communicate specific, written grounds of arrest to the arrestee within the mandated timeframe (at least two hours before remand proceedings) constitutes a severe constitutional infraction that effectively bars the arrestee from meaningful legal challenge to their detention, thereby entitling them to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional provision protecting the right to be informed of arrest grounds is a fundamental safeguard that must be strictly observed. The absence of timely, written, and specific notification of the reasons for arrest creates a demonstrable prejudice, requiring the court to grant bail regardless of the gravity of the underlying allegations.
Result: Petition for bail allowed.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikram Hegde with Mr. Abhinav Hansaraman, Mr. Trishan D., Mr. Amit Dwivedi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP with Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Ms. Krishna Mohan Maurya, Ms. Lisa Pegwal, Mr. Apoorv Paliya, Mr. Utkarsh Singh,
Advocates. SI Vipin Malik, P.S.: Special Cell.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural initiation and factual background of the bail application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's contentions regarding procedural violations of article 22(1) and evidentiary deficiencies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. state arguments opposing bail based on evidence severity and prospective precedent application. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. application of constitutional safeguards requiring timely communication of written arrest grounds. (Para 30) |
| 5. order granting regular bail subject to specified bail conditions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
By way of the present petition filed under section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) and section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 455/2024 dated 02.10.2024 registered under sections 8/20/21/25/29 of the NDPS Act at P.S.: Special Cell, Delhi. Consequent upon completion of investigation, allegations of offences under sections 22/27A of the NDPS Act and sections 238B/209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) have been added vidé chargesheet dated 10.06.2025 filed in the matter.
2. Notice on this petition was issued vidé order dated 17.10.2025.
3. Status Report dated 04.11.2025 has been filed on behalf of the State.
4. Nominal Roll dated 16.04.2026 in respect of the petitioner has been received from the concerned Jail Superintendent.
5. This court has heard Mr. Vikram Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; as well as Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, at length.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the petitioner has been arraigned in the present case pursuant to the statement of one Mrs. Abhilasha Gupta, Head of Operations of one M/s Pharma Solution Services Pvt. Ltd. (‘Pharma Solution Services’) recorded on 04.10.2024 under section 180 BNSS.
7. It has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid statement, the premises of M/s Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (‘Aavkar Drugs’) at Ankleshwar, Gujarat were raided by the Special Cell on 13.10.2024 and 518.18 kg of a white crystal powder was recovered; and three directors of Aavkar Drugs, namely Vijay Bhesaniya, Ashwani Ramani and Brijesh Kothia, alongwith one employee of Pharma Solution Services, Mayur Desale, and the present petitioner were arrested from the spot.
8. Mr. Hegde has submitted, that the principal allegation against the petitioner is, that working as a consultant, middleman and marketing agent under the name of Masuriya Pharma Solution, the petitioner had a long-standing relationship with Aavkar Drugs and had facilitated the execution of a Job Work Agreement dated 08.08.2024 between Aavkar Drugs and Pharma Solution Services for manufacture of ‘Phenylephrine Hydrochloride Intermediate’, a legal pharmaceutical substance.
9. It is the petitioner’s case that he was never supplied with the ‘grounds of arrest’ in writing, either at the time of his arrest or at any time thereafter. Learned counsel points‑out, that even the Arrest Memo dated 13.10.2024 qua the petitioner is devoid of any grounds of arrest. It is submitted that the arrest memo merely reflects a mechanical narration of alleged ‘reasons for arrest’, which falls foul of the constitutional requirement of serving grounds of arrest as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2026) 1 SCC 500 and Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India & Anr., Order dated 01.04.2026 in SLP (Crl.) Nos.3326/2026 and 3327/2026
10. Mr. Hegde has argued that the requirement of informing an arrestee of the grounds of his arrest is a substantive, sacrosanct safeguard of personal liber
