Order 121026ba1236.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1236 OF 2026. Rabinarayan Bijuli Bhola -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri A.R. Rawlani, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms S.N. Thakur, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2026. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.546/2025 registered with Police Station Railway (Lohmarg), District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8[c] and 20[b][ii][C] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS). 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Police Official Amod Ingle attached to the said Police Station Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:13930 Order 121026ba1236.26 2 alleging that on 22.11.2025, secret information was received that ganja is being transported in Train no. 20857. When the said train was searched, beneath berth no.16 in A-1 Coach, two suspicious trolley bags were found from which pungent smell was coming. The applicant was found occupying the said berth, and he informed the officials that the bags belong to him and ganja is kept inside it. After completing necessary formalities, raid was conducted, during which 24.650 kgs. of ganja was seized from the trolley bags of the applicant. Accordingly, the first information report came to be lodged. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that this Court by order dated 10.08.2026 had granted liberty to the applicant to approach the trial Court for raising a ground that, when he was arrested, he was given the grounds of arrest in Marathi language and not in the language known to him. According to the learned Counsel, the applicant approached the trial Court, however, his application was rejected on the ground that he had not raised the said ground in his first bail application, and in view of the judgment in case of State of Meghalaya .vrs. Sonam Raghuvanshi – 2026 SCC Online, SC Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 3 1392, the said ground cannot be raised in the second bail application. It is his submission that infact this is not the ratio of the said ruling, and the trial Court misread the said judgment, therefore, since this Court had already granted liberty, the trial Court ought to have considered the ground raised by the applicant. The learned Counsel further submits that from the entire charge sheet, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was having knowledge of Marathi language, on the contrary, the applicant belongs to the State of Odisha and he knows Odia and English language. The applicant relied on the judgment of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol .vrs. State of Punjab – 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1939, as also the order of this Court in case of Shibraj [Shivraj] @ Rahul Rankadhar Mallik .vrs. State of Maharashtra – Criminal Application (BA) No.675/2026 decided on 24.06.2026, and submitted that in such circumstances, arrest of the applicant is an illegal arrest, and therefore, he be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the applicant was found in possession of 24.650 Kgs of Ganja kept beneath his Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 4 berth while he was travelling. She submits that though the investigating officer has not ascertained whether the applicant knows Hindi, Marathi or English language, however, grounds of arrest were supplied to him in Marathi language. The said grounds of arrest were also orally communicated in the language known to the applicant, however, she concedes to the fact that there is no record to that effect. She further submits that, considering the commercial quantity of the contraband involved, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. Inviting attention to the judgment in case of State of Meghalaya .vrs. Sonam Raghuvanshi [supra], she submits that the Supreme Court has recently held that where such a ground was not raised at the earliest opportunity, it cannot be raised at the later stage. Therefore, she submits that this is not a fit case for grant of bail, the application is thus liable to be rejected. 6. Upon consideration of aforesaid submissions, prima facie it appears that the applicant hails from District Ganjam in the State of Odisha. The applicant had earlier filed an application before this Court, however, as the ground of non Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 5 supply of grounds of arrest in a language known to him was not raised by him, he was asked to raise the said ground before the trial Court and accordingly, he has raised the said ground that, he does not understand Marathi language and only understands Odia and English languages. Upon perusal of the entire charge sheet, apparently, it appears that the grounds of arrest were served to the applicant in Marathi language. It is to be noted that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant understands Marathi language. Needless to mention that in the charge sheet the address of applicant is shown as Ganjam, State of Odisha. The learned Counsel for applicant has relied on the School Education Certificate of the applicant wherein, his first language is shown as Odia. The school record further demonstrates that there is no mention of Marathi language in those certificates. In such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of this Court in case of Shivraj Rankadhar Mallik (supra), wherein, in similar circumstances, the entire law on the subject was discussed while granting bail to the applicant therein. Further the Supreme Court in its latest judgment in case of Jaskaran Jeet Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 6 Singh Deol (supra), has once again reiterated the law and held that for the purpose of compliance with Article 22[1] of the Constitution, it is sufficient to communicate the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. However, the grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner that enable him to fully understand the same, and therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands. The relevant observations are contained in the following paragraphs. “19.1. This Court held that as far as Article 22(1) is concerned, compliance can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The ground should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands. Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the objects of Articles 21 and 22. Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 7 19.2. On the basis of the said reasoning, this Court declared that if the requirement of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, rendering such arrest illegal. 19.3. Once it is held that the arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a chargesheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. This Court emphasized in no uncertain terms, we cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22. 19.4 Though an argument was advanced on behalf of the State that even if the accused is released on the ground of violating Article 22, he can be re-arrested was not gone into by this Court as it was found to be not necessary to decide the issue involved in that case. 19.5. In the above context, this Court declared that when a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That would also be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. This Court held thus: 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 8 forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. 20. …. 20.1. …. 20.2. The Bench observed that the mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution is unambiguous and clear in nature. It provides that the arrested person cannot be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. Explaining the above, the Bench held as follows: 38. The objective enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India for furnishing grounds of arrest stems from the fundamental principle of providing opportunity to a person to allow him to defend himself from the accusations that are levelled against him leading to his arrest. The salutary purpose of informing the grounds of arrest is to enable the person to understand the basis of his arrest and engage legal counsel to challenge his arrest, remand or seek bail and/or avail of any other remedy as may be available to him/her under law. 23. Having discussed the judgments, it would be apposite to sum up the core principles qua Article 22(1). The grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language which is understood by Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 9 the accused. A copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. An accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of his arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. Any attempt to encroach upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution has to be frowned upon by the courts and dealt with strictly. It would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Such a fundamental right being sacrosanct, cannot be breached under any situation. Any breach or non- compliance would entail immediate release of the arrested person because such arrest is unconstitutional. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22. Subsequent filing of charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate such an arrest. Article 22(1) applies across the spectrum including offences under the IPC or under special enactments. It is not statute specific. It is not a mere formality or a matter of procedure. It is a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard. When there is violation of the Constitution, question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise. The safeguards adumbrated in Article 22(1) are not mere procedural safeguards; these are fundamental principles which are required to be followed in the event liberty of a person is sought to be curtailed. Therefore, it is not correct at all to say that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitles the accused to bail. When an accused is released for Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 10 violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22 (1), he is not enlarged on bail. He is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention. 7. From the above, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS Act or other factors for granting bail to the accused cannot override Article 22[1] of the Constitution. It was observed by the Supreme Court in aforesaid case, more specifically in paragraph no.23, that the grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language which is understood by the accused. As it is an integral part of Article 22[1] of the Constitution of India and therefore, such sacrosanct fundamental right cannot be breached under any situation. Further the Supreme Court held that any breach or non- compliance would entail immediate release of the arrested person, as such an arrest would be rendered unconstitutional, and not even the subsequent filing of the charge sheet and order of cognizance will validate such an arrest. It has further held that Article 22[1] applies across the spectrum of statutes and is not confined to any particular statute. The Supreme Court has in unequivocally terms clarified that even in the cases involving offences committed under a special statute, the Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 11 mandatory compliance of procedural safeguards needs to be followed, as those are not empty formalities. 8. Considering the facts of the present case, it could be gathered from the record that the applicant was not aware of Marathi language. The documentary material placed on record shows that the applicant is a resident of Ganjam, State of Odisha and his first language is Odia, as it can be seen from the School Certificate. In such circumstances, since there is no material placed on record to show that the applicant was aware about the grounds of arrest in the language known to him, this vitiates his arrest. In such circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail, hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant /accused Rabinarayan Bijuli Bhola be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.546/2025 registered with Police Station Railway (Lohmarg), District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8[c] and 20[b][ii][C] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, one from the Rgd. Order 121026ba1236.26 12 place where he is residing i.e. Ganjam, State of Odisha and another local surety, i.e. the place where the offence is registered. (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 16/10/2026 15:17:41