Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 11657 of 2026 Jaffar Ali ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing (PEW), Crime Branch, TPK Road, Madurai City. (Crime No.196 of 2025) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.J.Mohamed Ibrahim For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 196 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.08.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.196 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 2. The case of the prosecution is that, The petitioner is arrayed as A4 in this case. On 24.08.2025 at about 6.30 hours, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police received secret information regarding the transportation of ganja. Accordingly, the police team, after obtaining due authorisation, proceeded near Alagappa Nagar Railway Gate, within the jurisdiction of Madurai City, and intercepted an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. TS 58 V 2709. Four persons were travelling in the said autorickshaw. After complying with the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, the vehicle was searched and 22 kilograms of ganja were recovered from them. Thereafter, all the accused were arrested and brought to the police station and the case was registered. They were subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, the final report has been filed and taken on file in C.C. No.137 of 2026, and the case is now pending for furnishing copies to the accused. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, though the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, the grounds of arrest were not furnished to him immediately upon his arrest, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that even as on date, the grounds of arrest have not been served on the petitioner. Hence, 2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 the petitioner was not in position to effectively conduct the bail application and also prevented from defending his remand. According to the learned counsel, such non furnishing of grounds of arrest has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the supply of grounds of attest, submitted that the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India the grounds of arrest were properly explained to him. It is further submitted that the report contemplated under Section 52 of the NDPS Act was also furnished to him, and the information relating to his arrest was duly communicated in accordance with law. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6.The law is well settled regarding the non supply of ground of arrest in the following Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066] and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another [2025 INSC 162] . 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 7.By following the above Judgments, the issue relating to the non- furnishing of the grounds of arrest has been considered by me in Vignesh v. State through Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur Unit, Chennai, in Crl.O.P. No.34406 of 2025, by order dated 27.02.2026. In the said decision, this Court has observed as follows: “The Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another [2025 INSC 162] has held that, the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that the information about the grounds of arrest to be provided to the arrested person in such a manner, that sufficient context of the basic facts constituting the grounds is important and communicated to the arrested person. It further reads that the burden of compliance of Article 22(1) is on the persons, who is exercising the power of arrest. Further elaborating the scope of Article 21, Article 22 and other connected provisions, the Apex Court had concluded as follows: “11. The view taken in the case of Pankaj Bansal was reiterated by this Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha. In paragraph nos. 28 and 29, this Court held thus: “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non- compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.” (emphasis added) 12. This Court held that the language used in Articles 22(1) and 22(5) regarding communication of the grounds is identical, and therefore, this Court held that interpretation of Article 22(5) made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the ground of arrest is concerned. We may also note here that in paragraph 21, in the case of Prabir Purkayastha, this Court also dealt with the effect of violation of Article 22(1) by holding that any 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Paragraph 21 reads thus: “21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.” (emphasis added) 13. In the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, in paragraph 20, this Court held thus: “20. It is an admitted position that the detenu does not know English. The grounds of detention, which were served on the detenu, have been drawn up in English. It is true that Shri C.L. Antali, Police Inspector, who served the grounds of detention on the detenu, has filed an affidavit stating that he had fully explained the grounds of detention in Gujarati to the detenu. But, that is not a sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that the grounds of detention must be “communicated” to the detenu. “Communicate” is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting 6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 the “grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicating the “ground” to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the “grounds” are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed. If any authority is needed on this point, which is so obvious from Article 22(5), reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962 Supp 2 SCR 918 : AIR 1962 SC 911 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 797] and Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate [(1969) 1 SCR 227 : AIR 1969 SC 43 : 1969 Cri LJ 274] .” (emphasis added) Therefore, 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 grounds 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 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 understands. That is how, in the case of Pankaj Bansal, this Court held that the mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. However, under Article 22(1), there is no requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every person arrested to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement incorporated in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for arresting the person without a warrant exist. 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 stated above. .... “CONCLUSIONS: 21. Therefore, we conclude: 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/ Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, noncompliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate 9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) 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 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.” 8. In Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066], the Apex Court after observing the Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India [SLP(Crl) No.9220 -21 of 2023] and the principles laid down in Vihaan Kumar's case cited supra as observed in paragraph No.56 as follows: “56. In conclusion, it is held that: (i) The constitutional mandate and informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes, including the offences under IPC, 1860 (now BNS, 2023) (ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/ she understands (iii) In case where, the arresting officer/ person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after 10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 the arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate (iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to set free.” 9. Further the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in Karan Singh's case cited supra, after considering both Mihir Rajesh Shah's case and Sri Darshan's case has observed in paragraph No.19 as follows: “19. There is one more aspect of the case. The grievance about the alleged procedural lapse has been raised very belatedly i.e., after more than one year and nine months of the arrest and there is no whisper of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner, who was represented by counsel from day one. Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan has held that while compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a “prejudice-oriented test” when examining alleged procedural lapses and, further held that mere absence of written grounds does no ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice by denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend themselves.” 10. In State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan reported in 2025 SCC Online 1702, it has been specifically observed by the Apex Court that the arrestee has to establish that there is a demonstrable prejudice. Considering the above line of 11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 judgments, this Court is of the view that, after passing of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case, it is mandatory on the part of the every arresting officer to intimate the grounds of arrest in writing in the language he/ she understands, it is a constitutional mandate and informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes. Further it is held that the communications of this grounds of arrest in all the offences has to be given to the arrestee at the earliest, which means that it need not be given at the time of arrest but within the reasonable time. 11. In Vihaan Kumar's case, it is held that non-compliance of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India will be a violation of fundamental rights of the accused and vitiates in arrest of the accused and the orders passed by the Criminal Court of remand are also vitiated. It is also further added that, it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial but at the same time, filing of the charge sheet will not validate the breach of the constitutional mandate under the said Article 22(1). 12. In Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. vs. The State [Criminal Appeal No.4505 of 2025, dated 14.10.2025] after considering the Vihaan Kumar's case, Sri Darshan's case and Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [Criminal Appeal No.2808 of 2025 dated 23.05.2025] has held as follows: “In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.(supra) the facts governing are quite different. It was a case dealing with 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 the cancellation of bail where the charge sheet had been filed and the grounds of detention were served immediately. This Court has, in fact, given its approval to the decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.(supra). Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra), this Court was pleased to hold in para 27 that the object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest should be communicated has been explained by this Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr (supra). Therefore, the law as laid down in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr (supra) has been approved and reiterated in the abovesaid decisions. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the present appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the appellants has not been complied with. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. However, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court and consequently setting aside the order of arrest and remand, we would only say that liberty is granted to the respondents to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is made out. Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused.” 13. The above observations shows that, in Sri Darshan's case, the Apex Court has approved the decision of Vihaan Kumar's case and the above order was passed concerned with the 13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 cancellation of bail and also the fact that the grounds of detention was served immediately on the person in that case.” 8. In this present bail application, it is argued that the petitioner was intimated with the grounds of arrest and by relying the same, it is contended that, intimation regarding grounds of arrest was not sufficiently explained to the petitioner, which is extracted hereunder: 14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 9.The above intimation regarding the grounds of arrest issued to the petitioner by the officer shows that, the petitioner herein was arrested for illegal possession of Ganja. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the information regarding the grounds of arrest contains every information for the arrest of the petitioner herein. From the outside view, it might looks like the arrest intimation notice gives the place of seizure, dates on which the seizure was effected and the overtacts attributed against the petitioner, etc., but the closer scrutiny of the same reveals it does not contain basic facts, which is necessary for the petitioner to defend himself from the allegations levelled at the time of exercising his right of seeking bail. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein was arrested based on series of events and it is stated that prior to search and seizure, the prior information was received, which was recorded by the Search Officer; that after intimating to the petitioner, the search was conducted, the contraband was seized under the seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses, statement was recorded from the accused and he was placed under arrest, etc., but none of the facts stated were served on the petitioner herein. 10.As on today though investigation in this case has been concluded, final report has been filed as observed in Vihaan Kumar v. Union of India, in paragraph 21(d) that the filing of the final report will not validate the breach of 16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. So far no copies were served on the petitioner and thereby they have not in a position to contest the bail application effectively. Further it is stated that since there is no proper communication of grounds of arrest they were not in position to successfully raised objection at the time of remand. 11. I am of the view that the petitioner herein demonstrated that, he suffered prejudice by denial of fair opportunity to defend himself. Since, there was no proper compliance of informing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner herein and it resulted in causing prejudice to his interest in defending the case and prevented him from filing the bail petition and effectively submit his side case on merits, it is clear violation of Article 22(1) and which resulted in custody of the petitioner rendered illegal, hence this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 55 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another, wherein certain remedial measures have been indicated and prays that they may be permitted to the supply once again the grounds of arrest and also to take appropriate measures 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 as observed by the Apex Court. In para 55 of the above said judgment reads as follows: “55. It goes without saying that if the above said schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee. On such release, an application for remand or custody, if required, will be moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing setting forth the explanation for non-supply thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such an application, the magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.” 13.It is the remedial measures given to the investigating agency for the purpose of adhering the compliance of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and since the Apex Court in the above paragraph has very clearly indicate the steps to be taken by the investigating Officers in case of accused being released on the ground of violation of Article 22(1), granting further liberty is not necessary. With the above observation, the bail is granted with the following conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders: [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned 19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS. (K R S J) 23.07.2026 TM To 1.The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing (PEW), Crime Branch, TPK Road, Madurai City. (Crime No.196 of 2025) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Virudhunagar. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11657 of 2026 K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11657 of 2026 Date : 23.07.2026 21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis