The Supreme Court docket just lately granted bail to 2 medical professionals accused in a narcotics case on the bottom that they weren’t provided the grounds of arrest in writing previous to manufacturing earlier than the Justice of the Peace.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta handed the order, noting that the grounds of arrest must have been provided to the accused, as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
In Mihir Rajesh Shah, a bench of ex-Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih held that failure to offer the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, within the language they perceive, would render the arrest and subsequent remand unlawful.
Referring to this precedent, the bench within the current case noticed,
“the arrest memo, by itself, displays that the grounds of arrest had been orally defined to the accused earlier than the method of formal arrest was undertaken. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to have provided the memo of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused two hours previous to producing them earlier than the Justice of the Peace as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which apparently has not been adopted on this case.”
Briefly put, the appellants, each medical professionals involved with operation of a hospital in Amritsar, have been arrested in reference to an NDPS case involving seizure of Tramadol tablets.
As per claims, an order for provide of 200 Tramadol tablets was positioned by them with a pharmaceutical firm (for therapy of sufferers on the hospital). However as a consequence of an error, the pharmaceutical firm provided 2000 tablets. The whole consignment was stored by the hospital in a sealed situation and a letter despatched to the corporate for return of the surplus 1800 tablets.
Nevertheless, earlier than the surplus consignment might be returned, the Narcotics Management Bureau carried out a raid on the pharmaceutical firm and recovered 31,900 Tramadol tablets. Following the seizure, a narcotics case was registered and search carried out on the hospital’s medicos, from the place the sealed consignment of 2000 tablets was recovered.
After being arrested, the appellants have been remanded to judicial custody on 03.05.2025. Initially, they sought bail earlier than the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket, pleading particularly that they weren’t provided with the grounds of arrest earlier than being taken into custody, however their pleas have been rejected. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court docket.
Earlier than the highest Court docket, it was contended that non-supply of grounds of arrest to the appellants, in writing, amounted to a violation of the basic rights underneath Articles 21 and 22 of the Structure. It was argued that mere point out of case particulars within the arrest memo was not ample, and the arrest was unlawful.
The respondents, alternatively, countered that the consignment of 2000 Tramadol tablets was intentionally obtained by the appellants’ hospital, although its license excluded Tramadol from the listing of permitted gadgets. It was additional argued that the grounds of arrest have been defined to the appellants and supplied within the arrest memo.
After listening to the events and contemplating the fabric, the highest Court docket concluded that the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah case was not adopted within the current case. Although the grounds of arrest have been said to have orally defined to the accused, the identical weren’t provided in writing.
“It’s now not res integra that supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing earlier than the arrest or, in a given case, underneath distinctive circumstances, instantly thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional ensures supplied underneath Article 22(1) learn with Article 21 of the Structure of India. The ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) conclusively holds that any deviation from the above precept would result in the arrest of the accused being declared unlawful entitling such accused to be launched forthwith”, the Court docket stated.
Accordingly, the appellants have been granted bail.
Look: Senior Advocates S Nagamuthu and PV Dinesh (for appellants); ASG Anil Kaushik for NCB
Case Title: DR. RAJINDER RAJAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR, SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3326 of 2026
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327
