Failure to communicate arrest grounds does not automatically entitle a petitioner to bail involving serious narcotics charges under the NDPS Act.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.109/2025 of Kothanuru Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 22 (c), 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 14 of Foreigners Act .

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is having Passport and Visa and it was valid as on the date of alleged offence and therefore, offence under Section 14 of Foreigners Act is not attracted. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is seeking bail only on the ground that grounds of arrest have not been communicated as required under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India , Section 47 of BNSS and Section 52 (1) of NDPS Act. The restrictions contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act for grant of bail does not apply since grounds of arrest are not communicated to the petitioner in the language known to him. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Pankaj Bhansal vs. Union of India (2023 INSC 866)

(ii) Prabhir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) ( 2024 INSC 414 )

(iii) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162)

(iv) Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of A.P.(2025 INSC 768)

(v) Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh (Crl.A.1518/2025)

(vi) V.Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 739)

4. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that grounds of arrest have been intimated to the accused at the time of arrest. Even though the grounds are in Kannada, the same have been explained in English and the petitioner has affixed his signature and LTM on the same. Even the arrest of the petitioner has been communicated to his friend who has also affixed his signature on arrest report dated 01.05.2025. The contraband has been sent for examination to FSL and test report indicates that MDMA and quantity seized is commercial quantity and therefore, limitations/restrictions contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act apply. There are no grounds to say that petitioner has not committed offence under NDPS Act. There is a reverse burden on the petitioner to show that he has not committed offence under NDPS Act. The petitioner is a foreigner and he is dealing with narcotic drugs and it affects society. The petitioner is caught red-handed possessing MDMA of commercial quantity and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of hampering investigation and committing similar offence. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

6. The case of prosecution is that 416 grams of MDMA was seized from the possession of petitioner. The said contraband seized has been sent for examination to FSL. The FSL report indicates that contraband seized from the possession of the petitioner is MDMA. It is not in dispute that quantity of MDMA seized from the possession of the petitioner is of commercial quantity. Section 37 of NDPS Act reads thus:

37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under sectio