Arrest Memo Containing Mere 'Reasons For Arrest' Can't Substitute Person-Specific 'Grounds Of Arrest': Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to an accused booked under the NDPS Act, holding that arrest memo containing mere reasons for arrest cannot substitute “grounds of arrest” which are personal and specific to the accused.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest within the constitutionally mandated timeline renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The Court reiterated that the requirement of informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is “not a technical formality but a substantive, sacrosanct safeguard of personal liberty.”
The Court was dealing with a bail plea filed by one Brijesh Kothia in an NDPS case registered by Delhi Police Special Cell. Kothia argued that although he was arrested in Gujarat on October 13, 2024, he was never supplied written grounds of arrest either at the time of arrest or at least two hours before being produced for remand, as mandated by recent Supreme Court rulings.
Justice Bhambhani allowed the bail plea, the Court noted that the Supreme Court ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah had authoritatively held that where police already possess documentary material forming the basis of arrest, written grounds of arrest must be furnished at the time of arrest and, in exceptional cases, at least two hours before production before the Magistrate.
The Court reiterated that non‑supply of written grounds of arrest within the stipulated window vitiates the arrest and the remand, irrespective of the statute under which the arrest is made, though without invalidating the investigation or the trial.
The Court observed that the arrest memo issued to Kothia merely recorded general “reasons for arrest” and did not contain personalised “grounds of arrest”.
It further found that there was no material showing that any separate written grounds of arrest were furnished either at the time of arrest in Gujarat or before remand proceedings.
“This omission is not a curable procedural irregularity but a substantive constitutional infraction which has caused demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner. Deprived of written grounds of arrest in advance, the petitioner was effectively disabled from instructing counsel and meaningfully resisting the prayer for transit remand before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ankleshwar, Distt.: Bharuch, Gujarat; and later from effectively opposing police custody remand before the learned ASJ/Special Judge/NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi,” the Court said while
It added that the very purpose for which Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insists on timely written communication of grounds of arrest, viz. – to equip the arrestee with sufficient knowledge to challenge the deprivation of liberty – stood frustrated in the case in hand.
The Court added that illegality in arrest and remand would not nullify the investigation or prevent the investigating agency from taking fresh action in accordance with law, including effecting a fresh arrest in compliance with constitutional safeguards.
While granting bail, the Court also noted that Kothia had already spent more than one year and four months in custody, had satisfactory jail conduct and no criminal antecedents.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Mr. Naveen Panwar, Ms. Kajol Garg and Mr. Mohd. Yasir, Advocates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP for the State with Ms. Samidhi Dobhal, Mr. Krishna M. Chandel, Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Mr. Utkarsh Singh and Mr. Apoorv Paliya, Advocates
Title: BRIJESH KOTHIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI