ORDER :

R. Vijayakumar, J.

The present petition has been filed by Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No. 143 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeking to set aside the order of remand passed by the Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kilvelur on 04.07.2024.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act . They were arrested at 9.00 a.m on 04.07.2024 and were produced before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kilvelur and they were remanded to judicial custody under the impugned order. This impugned remand order is put to challenge in the present petition on the following grounds:

a).The arrest memo did not contain full particulars and therefore, it is defective.

b)The arrest intimation was not given in writing to the family members/relatives of the accused persons.

c)According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the arrest memo is in a printed format and it does not contain the grounds of arrest. Therefore, it is defective in nature.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 162 ( Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another ) and submitted that mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest. He further contended that the grounds of arrest should not only be communicated to the arrested person but also to his friends and relatives.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 INSC 414 (Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and submitted that the “reasons for arrest” is different from “grounds of arrest” therefore, according to him, the grounds of arrest should contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest should be informed in writing to the family members also, otherwise the order of remand is invalid in the eye of law.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1318 ( Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh ) and contended that non furnishing of grounds of arrest would vitiate the arrest and the order of remand. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 INSC 866 ( Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India and others ) and contended that when grounds of arrest has not been furnished to the arrest person in writing, that would vitiate the order of remand. He also relied up the same judgment and contended that intimation of arrest should be furnished to the family members.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 1288 ( Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another ) and contended that informing the arrestee about the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all the offences and grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language in which she or he understands. He further submitted that the non-compliance of the above said condition would make the arrest and the subsequent remand order vitiated and the accused person shall be set free.

7.Relying upon the above said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the arrest intimation has not been given in writing to the family members. That apart, the grounds of arrest, though served upon the petitioners, it does not contain the grounds of arrest and therefore defective in nature. It is only a printed format and hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of remand.

8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the arrest memo clearly indicates that all of them were arrested while they were car