IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. Pavesh @ Bhavesh

2. Dhivakar ... Petitioners /A7 & A8

Vs.

The State Rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

T-4, Maduravoyal Police Station,

(Cr.No.494 of 2025) … Respondent

Chennai.

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order of remand passed as against the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee in Crime

No.494 of 2025 dated 13.07.2025 in the interest of justice.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Karthikeyan

for Mr.K.Subburaj

For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed by A7 & A8

challenging the order of remand dated 13.07.2025 passed as against the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee in Crime No.494

of 2025.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2025 at about 18.15 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station received a secret information about the illegal sale of LSD Stamp, Methamphetamine and Ganja; that based on the intimation, the Sub- Inspector of Police, along with his team went to the place of occurrence i.e., Maduravoyal Kammatchiamman 2^nd Street Junction; that A1 was found in possession of 5.25 grams of Methamphetamine in his Royal Enfield two- wheeler, which was seized along with his bike; that thereafter, the respondents have arrested two other accused A2 and A3; that on their confession, they went to the house in which the petitioners along with the other accused were found; that A2 was found in possession of 0.81 grams of LSD besides a cash of Rs.50,000/-; that A3 was found in possession of 350 grams of Ganja; and that thereafter the petitioners/A7 & A8 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.07.2025, pursuant to the impugned remand orders. It is also the prosecution’s case that no contraband was seized from the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioners in writing as mandated in the Constitution and in Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., which is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments and even in the latest judgment in Mihir Rajesh shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2356.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed counter affidavits in both the cases sworn in by the Inspector of Police, T4 Maduravoyal Police Station and would submit that the respondent Police had followed the mandatory procedures for arrest; that the petitioners were informed of the grounds of arrest and since the respondent has duly complied with the Constitutional and Statutory requirements, the learned Magistrate was justified in remanding the petitioners and therefore, the impugned orders are not liable to be set aside.

5. It is seen from the record that the FIR was registered on 13.07.2025 for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii),(A) 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. All the petitioners and the six other accused were named in the FIR. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 was intercepted at Maduravoyal Kammatchiamman Second Street Junction at Koyambedu and was arrested at 18.30 hours and was found in possession of 5.25 grams of Methamphetamine; that on his confession it was revealed that the petitioners and the other accused were in the habit of using Narcotic drugs and were also selling the same to known persons; that thereafter the investigation team went to the house of A1 where the petitioners along with the other accused were found; and that A2 was found in possession of 0.81 grams of LSD and A3 was found in possession of 350 grams of Ganja.

6. The counter specifically does not state that the grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioners in writing. The counter vaguely refers to informing the petitioners of the grounds of arrest. Admittedly, no contraband was seized from the