- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9048 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED NIAZ S/O. HYDER AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT: NO.5/198/8, PANCHAMI HOUSE, PUDU GRAMPACHAYAT, 7TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 143. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ULLALA POLICE STATION, D.K DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ARREST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20.07.2023 IN CRIME NO.111/2023 OF ULLAL POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 UNDER SECTION 8(C), 21, 21(C) OF NDPS ACT, SECTION 3, 4, 25-1(B), (b) OF ARMS ACT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The Petitioner/ accused No.1 in this Writ Petition challenges the arrest made by the respondent dated 20.07.2023 in Crime No. 111/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 21, 21(c) of NDPS Act, Section 3,4,25-1 (B), (b) of Arms Act and to quash the impugned remand order dated 21.07.2023 in Cr.No. 111/2023 (Spl.C No. 69/2024) pending on the file of Learned Prl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, D.K Mangaluru for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the Prosecution is that on receiving the credible information by the complainant/ inspector that on 20.07.2023 at about 11.00 AM, 5 members in a silver swift car and black swift car near Pilikur, Thalapadi Village, Ullal Taluk had illegal contraband MDMA in their possession for selling the same to the public. After getting necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore, a raid was conducted at about 12.45 PM, 3 members in the silver swift - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 car tried to escape, out of which accused No.1 was arrested, and two persons in the black swift car were apprehended. 2.1 Subsequently, in the presence of the gazette officer and panchas, the complainant conducted a body search of Accused No.1 and Seized 2- I phones Mobile and cash of Rs 8,120/- and seized 100 grams of MDMA, seized a pistol and bullets from the car and the car along with weighing machine. Totally, the complainant seized 180 grams of MDMA from the Accused Nos 1 to 3. The Mahazar was drawn on 20.06.2023 from 4.00 PM to 6.00 PM. 2.2 Thereafter, FIR was registered against the three accused person for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 21, 21(c) of the NDPS Act, Section 3,4,25-1 (B), (b) of the Arms Act. The Petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2023 at about 1.00 PM, he was served with an arrest initimation and informed to his brother on the same day. 2.3 The Petitioner was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and he was remanded to the judicial custody by filing a requisition dated 21.07.2023, Being Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner contends that the arrest was conducted without mandatory compliance of grounds of arrest as provided under Section 53 of NDPS Act, Section 47(1) of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 3. Shri. Lethif B, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the respondent-police has not served the copy of the grounds of arrest to the petitioners, which is mandatory in view of Section 52 of the NDPS Act, Section 47(1) of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner was only served with an arrest initimation and the memo of arrest has not disclosed anything about the grounds on which he is detained. The impugned order of the remand is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana. Hence, contended that the detention of the petitioner is illegal and the remand order passed by the Court is erroneous; therefore, the petitioners may be released from custody. In support, he relied on the following decisions; (i) Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269). (ii) Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, para 20 to 22. (iii) T Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, para No.34,35,38 to 45. (iv) Syed Sajjid Ali v. Senior Intelligence officer (Crl.P No. 5435/2024) 4. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader has placed on record the grounds of arrest alleged to have been served on the petitioner at the time of the arrest. In - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 support, relied upon the decision of Narayanaswamy Ravishankar v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2002) 8 SCC 7. 5. A perusal of the copy of the arrest memo communication served on the petitioner discloses about the offences on which the petitioner is apprehended, it does not disclose about the grounds of arrest. Therefore, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner during the time of arrest nor after the arrest. Further, arrest intimation is given to the brother of the petitioner, non-disclosure of grounds of arrest vitiated the arrest and impugned remand order passed by the Trial Court. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar - vs- State of Haryana & anr. - in 2025 INSC 162, following the earlier decision has held that the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of fundamental rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. if the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, if would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, has distinguished the ‘grounds of arrest and arrest memo, it was held that ‘the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail – Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “38. The interpretation given by the learned Single Judge that the grounds of arrest were conveyed to the accused in writing vide the arrest memo is unacceptable on the face of the record because the arrest memo does not indicate the grounds of arrest being incorporated in the said document. Column No. 9 of the arrest memo (Annexure P-7) which is being reproduced hereinbelow simply sets out the ‘reasons for arrest’ which are formal in nature and can be generally attributed to any person arrested on accusation of an offence whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be personal in nature and specific to the person arrested. “9. Reason for arrest a. Prevent accused person from committing any further offence b.For proper investigation of the offence. c. To prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 d. To prevent such person from making any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police officer. e. As unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured.” 8. Further, in the case of T Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that written grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee in writing and non-compliance of the same would entail the immediate release of the person. Merely reading out of grounds of arrest orally to the arrested person is not adequate compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 9. In case of Syed Sajjid Ali v. Senior Intelligence officer (Crl.P No. 5435/2024), wherein the written grounds of arrest were not communicated to the arrestee and was remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(A), 135(1)(c)(A) and Section 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. This Court enlarged the accused on bail due to non-compliance of mandate of law while apprehending and detaining the accused even though prima facie materials are made out against the accused. 10. The Respondents contended that serving of Arrest memo on the accused clearly indicating the offence stated to have been committed by the accused under the NDPS Act and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 Narayanaswamy Ravishankar v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2002) 8 SCC 7, wherein the search and seizure was conducted in a public place and no search and seizure was conducted on the person of the accused, section 50 of NDPS were not attracted. However, in the present case, the search and seizure was conducted on the accused, and the arrest memo communicated to the accused does not discloses about the grounds on which the arrest was made. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 20.7.2023 before the pronouncement of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of T Pankaj Bansal supra which was pronounced on 3.10.2023. Therefore, the decision rendered in the case of T Pankaj Bansal supra is prospective and not applicable to the facts of this case. 11. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioners stands vitiated for violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner has got a prima facie case to release him from judicial custody forthwith. ORDER: (i) Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. (ii) The Jail Superintendent, Mysuru, is hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith from judicial custody in Crime No.111/2023 (Spl.C No. 69/2024) pending on the file of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 Learned Prl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, D.K Mangaluru , for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 21, 21(c) of NDPS Act, Section 3,4,25-1 (B), (b) of Arms Act, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall furnish a cash in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of his release; b) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; c) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required; d) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Jurisdictional Police in the first week of every month pending trial; e) The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future; f) The concerned Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay and immediately upon a receipt of copy of this order, if he is not required for any other cases, if any. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16478 WP No. 9048 of 2025 g) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Jail Authorities concerned forthwith without any delay through e-mail and telephonically. h) In the event, the petitioner violates any of the aforesaid conditions mentioned, the cash surety furnished by the petitioner stands forfeited with the Government. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 122