The Uttarakhand High Court has held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, renders detention illegal - even in cases involving serious drug offences under the NDPS Act. This ruling reinforces constitutional protections over procedural lapses, irrespective of statutory bail restrictions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Rajat Saini alias Amoldeep, was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 672 of 2024 registered at Police Station SIIDCUL, District Haridwar, under Sections 8, 22, and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The case involves the recovery of 4,600 Buprenorphine injections from the applicant and a co-accused during a raid at Danso Chowk.
Key Facts
- The applicant was apprehended on 17.12.2024 at approximately 03:49 p.m. at Danso Chowk.
- A total of 4,600 Buprenorphine injections, contained in two cartons, were recovered from his possession.
- An inventory of the seized contraband was prepared, and the applicant was formally arrested at 07:05 p.m. on the same day.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.12.2024.
- The applicant claims he was actually apprehended at B.S.M. Chowk around 12:00 p.m., a commercially active area with multiple CCTV installations.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record.
- No written grounds of arrest were provided to the applicant at the time of arrest.
- The prosecution claimed CCTV footage from B.S.M. Chowk and the police station was unavailable due to damage caused by mice or monkeys.
Procedural History
- 17.12.2024: Applicant arrested and taken into judicial custody.
- 02.01.2025: First remand order passed by the Magistrate.
- 15.01.2025: Second remand order issued.
- 28.02.2026: First bail application filed before the Uttarakhand High Court (BA No. 1211 of 2025).
- 26.03.2026: Court directed the State to file a supplementary affidavit regarding CCTV footage.
- 02.04.2026: Hearing concluded; judgment delivered.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds that:
- The arrest was illegal due to non-communication of grounds under Article 22(1).
- The prosecution’s explanation for non-availability of CCTV footage was implausible.
- The applicant had no criminal antecedents and was falsely implicated.
- The statutory embargo on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not override constitutional rights.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, vitiates the arrest and renders subsequent judicial remand illegal, thereby entitling the accused to bail even when the NDPS Act imposes statutory restrictions on grant of bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269), arguing that non-communication of grounds of arrest is a fundamental violation of Article 22(1), which is a constitutional right and not merely procedural. The counsel contended that such a violation renders the arrest illegal ab initio, and any remand based on such an arrest is void. The applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, combined with the implausible explanation for the unavailability of CCTV footage from a high-traffic commercial area, further supported the claim of false implication. The counsel urged that constitutional safeguards must prevail over statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, submitted a supplementary affidavit claiming that CCTV footage from B.S.M. Chowk was unavailable due to damage to wiring allegedly caused by mice and monkeys. It was also claimed that the police station’s CCTV system was non-functional during the relevant period for the same reasons. The State argued that the recovery of a large quantity of contraband and the applicant’s presence at the scene were sufficient to justify the arrest, and that technical violations should not override the seriousness of the offence under the NDPS Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1), which requires that every person arrested shall be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. The Court emphasized that this is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary detention. The judgment in Vihan Kumar was cited with approval, where the Supreme Court held that non-communication of grounds of arrest is a serious infraction that goes to the root of legality of detention.
"The constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is not a procedural technicality but a fundamental protection against abuse of state power. Its violation cannot be condoned merely because the accused is charged with a serious offence."
The Court found the State’s explanation regarding the unavailability of CCTV footage from B.S.M. Chowk - where multiple commercial establishments are expected to have functioning cameras - to be inherently improbable. The claim that all systems failed simultaneously due to rodent or monkey damage was deemed speculative and lacking in corroboration. The Court observed that such an explanation, if accepted, would set a dangerous precedent allowing the State to evade accountability through implausible technical excuses.
The Court further noted that the record was silent on any written communication of grounds of arrest, and no evidence was produced to show that the applicant was orally informed in a meaningful manner. This constituted a clear breach of Article 22(1). The Court held that when such a violation is established, the arrest is rendered illegal, and the detention becomes unsustainable, irrespective of the nature of the offence.
The Court declined to express any opinion on the ultimate merits of the case or the veracity of the allegations, but emphasized that the legality of detention must be assessed independently of the charges.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The applicant, Rajat Saini alias Amoldeep, was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant must: (i) attend all trial proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments; (ii) refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence; and (iii) not leave India without prior permission of the trial court. The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions shall render the bail liable for cancellation upon application by the complainant or informant.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Constitutional Violations Override Statutory Bars
- Practitioners must now argue that Article 22(1) violations are not mere procedural lapses but jurisdictional defects that invalidate detention, even under stringent statutes like the NDPS Act.
- Bail applications under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should be framed around constitutional breaches, not just merits or antecedents.
- Courts are expected to prioritize constitutional safeguards over statutory restrictions when a clear violation of Article 22(1) is established.
Prosecution Must Provide Credible Evidence for CCTV Non-Availability
- Claims of CCTV failure due to "mice or monkeys" will be treated with skepticism, especially in commercial zones.
- Prosecution must provide technical reports, maintenance logs, or third-party verification to substantiate claims of system failure.
- Absent credible evidence, courts may infer suppression or fabrication, supporting the accused’s claim of false implication.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable in Arrests
- Arresting officers must record in writing the grounds of arrest and obtain the accused’s acknowledgment.
- Oral communication must be specific, clear, and documented in the arrest memo.
- Failure to comply will invite immediate bail relief, regardless of the severity of the alleged offence.
