JUDGMENT :

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

Can a weighty constitutional safeguard be diluted to an optional procedural nicety? It is this cardinal question that presents itself for consideration in the present case.

2. By way of this petition filed under 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 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) at P.S.: Special Cell, Delhi. Consequent upon completion of investigation, offences under sections 22/27A of the NDPS Act and sections 238B/209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been added vidé chargesheet dated 10.06.2025.

3. Notice on this petition was issued on 02.02.2026.

4. Status Report dated 27.02.2026 has been filed on behalf of the State.

5. Nominal Roll dated 25.02.2026 has been received from the Jail Superintendent.

6. This court has heard Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; as well as Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, learned SPP for the State, on 23.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 at length.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

7. Though much was argued on behalf of the petitioner on 23.04.2026, at the hearing on 27.04.2026, Mr. Aggarwal confined his submissions solely to the issue that ‘grounds of arrest’ were never supplied to the petitioner in writing and that accordingly the petitioner’s arrest and subsequent detention are illegal.

8. Mr. Aggarwal has submitted that, as is evident from Arrest Memo dated 13.10.2024, a copy of which is appended as Annexure P-29 to the petition, the petitioner was arrested from Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Gujarat on 13.10.2024; and no grounds of arrest were supplied to him in writing at that time. Counsel has further pointed-out, that a perusal of the arrest memo would show that in fact there is no mention of any ‘grounds of arrest’ in that document; and the arrest memo only narrates the reasons for the petitioner’s arrest.

9. In support of his submission that non-supply of the ‘grounds of arrest in writing’ is fatal to an arrest, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following paras of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India & Anr., Order dated 01.04.2026 in SLP (Crl.) Nos.3326/2026 and 3327/2026

“8. The appellant-Dr. Rajinder Rajan, who is a senior orthopaedic surgeon and owner of the hospital, and the appellant- Dr. Jatinder Malhotra being the proprietor of the pharmacy (Corporate Medicos) were initially summoned under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and after recording their statements, both were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 3^rd May, 2025.

*****

“20. It is no longer res integra that supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) conclusively holds that any deviation from the above principle would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith “21. Shri Kaushik tried to convince the Court that the grounds of arrest were orally explained to the accused at the time of preparation of the arrest memo. We have perused the arrest memo placed on record by Shri Kaushik and extract the same for the sake of ready reference:-

“Arrest Memo Consequent upon the recovery/seizure of 2000 Tablets of Tramadol on 02/05/2025 from Corporate Chemist inside Corporate Hospital, Batola Road, Amritsar - 14300/ and on the basis of voluntarily statement dated 02/05/2025 of Rajinder Rajan S/O Janak Raj R/o D-84,Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 having reasons to believe that Rajinder Rajan has violated section 8 and 22 of NDPS