Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
Arsadkhan Anvarhussain Riyaz Mohammed Pathan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL – AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6432 of 2026
Decided on : 29-06-2026
For the Appellant : MR ANIQ A KADRI(11256)
For the Respondent: MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Communication of grounds of arrest in writing and in a language understood by the arrestee is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS; failure to comply renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to be set free.
Headnote:The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under Sections 8(C), 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The applicant, a resident of Rajasthan not conversant in Gujarati, contended that the grounds of arrest were not provided in a language he understood, constituting a breach of mandatory legal provisions. The court found that the arrest memo was issued in Gujarati and no written grounds of arrest were provided to the applicant in Hindi, rendering the arrest illegal. The central issue was whether the failure to communicate written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the accused renders the arrest illegal. The court reasoned that under Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, furnishing grounds of arrest is a fundamental right and not a mere procedural formality. Relying on the ratio in Mihir Rajesh Shah, the court held that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands, or orally followed by written communication within a reasonable time and at least two hours prior to production before a Magistrate. The present application is allowed.
ORDER :
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
1. RULE Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11195003240763 OF 2024 registered with Amirgadh Police Station, District - Banaskantha for the offences under Sections 8(C), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “NDPS”).
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Aniq A. Kadri for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was arrested on 01.11.2024. Admittedly the applicant hails from Chittorgarh, Rajasthan and is not well conversant with Gujarati language. Furthermore, the grounds for arrest were not provided or supplied to the applicant which is fundamental breach of mandatory provision in absence of any grounds for arrest which are not provided to the applicant that too in language of the applicant and is a clear breach of mandatory provision irrespective of allegations or involvement of the applicant in the offence. He has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case between Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra , reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, and Dr. Rajinder Rajan Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327 and requested to allow the present application and declare the arrest of the as illegal and order to release the applicant in view of non supply of grounds of arrest and violation of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Code”)/ Section 47 of the BNSS.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant was arrested prior to pronouncement of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), which was pronounced on 06.11.2025, wherein, it clearly stated that henceforth supply of ground of arrest is mandatory. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 5 SCC 799, and submitted that as per the said judgment supply of grounds for arrest in written was not mandatory prior to pronouncement of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), only sufficient compliance and oral information of grounds for arrest is also may be treated as sufficient compliance. Further, the applicant was caught red handed in conscious possession of 584 grams of Mephedrone being commercial quantity which is a serious offence and rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. At the time of remand he was aware of grounds of arrest and there was no any prejudice the learned Magistrate has considered the ground of arrest. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application.
6. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The argument of the learned Advocate for the applicant is that the applicant was arrested in violation of Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and requested to declare the arrest of the applicant as illegal. The question whether failure to communicate written grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal ? It is undisputed and admitted fact that while raid was conducted at that time arrest memo was issued in Gujarati language, wherein, applicant has put his signature in Hindi language and no signature of any independent witness is found. Perusing the complaint it appears that at the time of raid the applicant was informed in Hindi language which clearly reveals that the applicant is hailing from Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, knowing Hindi language no grounds of arrest have been provided to the applicant. It is also undisputed and admitted fact that under Article 22(1) read with Article 2
