Supreme Court Grants Bail To Doctors In NDPS Case Since Grounds Of Arrest Weren't Given In Writing As Per 'Mihir Shah' Verdict
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to two medical professionals accused in a narcotics case on the ground that they were not supplied the grounds of arrest in writing prior to production before the Magistrate.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, noting that the grounds of arrest ought to have been supplied to the accused, as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
In Mihir Rajesh Shah, a bench of ex-Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih held that failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language they understand, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
Referring to this precedent, the bench in the present case observed,
"the arrest memo, by itself, reflects that the grounds of arrest had been orally explained to the accused before the process of formal arrest was undertaken. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to have supplied the memo of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused two hours prior to producing them before the Magistrate as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which apparently has not been followed in this case."
Briefly put, the appellants, both medical professionals concerned with operation of a hospital in Amritsar, were arrested in connection with an NDPS case involving seizure of Tramadol tablets.
As per claims, an order for supply of 200 Tramadol tablets was placed by them with a pharmaceutical company (for treatment of patients at the hospital). But due to an error, the pharmaceutical company supplied 2000 tablets. The entire consignment was kept by the hospital in a sealed condition and a letter sent to the company for return of the excess 1800 tablets.
However, before the excess consignment could be returned, the Narcotics Control Bureau conducted a raid at the pharmaceutical company and recovered 31,900 Tramadol tablets. Following the seizure, a narcotics case was registered and search conducted at the hospital's medicos, from where the sealed consignment of 2000 tablets was recovered.
After being arrested, the appellants were remanded to judicial custody on 03.05.2025. Initially, they sought bail before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, pleading specifically that they were not supplied with the grounds of arrest before being taken into custody, but their pleas were rejected. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court.
Before the top Court, it was contended that non-supply of grounds of arrest to the appellants, in writing, amounted to a violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. It was argued that mere mention of case details in the arrest memo was not sufficient, and the arrest was illegal.
The respondents, on the other hand, countered that the consignment of 2000 Tramadol tablets was deliberately obtained by the appellants' hospital, even though its license excluded Tramadol from the list of permitted items. It was further argued that the grounds of arrest were explained to the appellants and provided in the arrest memo.
After hearing the parties and considering the material, the top Court concluded that the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah case was not followed in the present case. Though the grounds of arrest were stated to have orally explained to the accused, the same were not supplied in writing.
"It is no longer res integra that supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) conclusively holds that any deviation from the above principle would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith", the Court said.
Accordingly, the appellants were granted bail.
Appearance: Senior Advocates S Nagamuthu and PV Dinesh (for appellants); ASG Anil Kaushik for NCB
Case Title: DR. RAJINDER RAJAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR, SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3326 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 327