Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13885 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 13885 of 2026 1.Mohamed Ali Jinna 2.Mohamed Mydeen ...Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.215 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Pradeep Advocate 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. 215 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.215 of 2026 on the file of the respondent 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13885 of 2026 police, seeks bail. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and found that the petitioner along with other accused is in possession of codeine phosphate 10 bottles and Hydrochoerid syrup 2 bottles, 10o m bottles, Alprazolam Tablet 9. Hence, the case was and the accused were arrested. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested 04.06.2026. No grounds of arrest has been given to the petitioner either in writing or by oral at the time of arrest. He would submit that it was served only recently i.e., on 20.07.2026, one month delay from the date of arrest. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2026 and the arrest intimation was served on him at the time of arrest and later the grounds of 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13885 of 2026 arrest has also been served upon him. Investigation in this case is still pending. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. I have gone through the intimation of arrest. It is bereft of details regarding the basic facts such as date, place of occurrence and manner in which occurrence taken place, etc., Though the learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the grounds of arrested has been served later, it was served only recently, i.e., one month later. 7. This Court is of the view that the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest has not been satisfactorily complied with. Such non-compliance amounts to a violation of the constitutional safeguard guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgments 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] . 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13885 of 2026 8.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. 9.Further 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. 10.Considering the above violation, the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for bail. Accordingly, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13885 of 2026 petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, until further orders; [c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners 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; 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13885 of 2026 [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned 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) 27.07.2026 TM To 1.The Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.215 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Dindigul. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13885 of 2026 K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 13885 of 2026 Date : 27.07.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis