Informing Family Of Arrest Alone Not Enough; Grounds Of Arrest Must Also Be Communicated In Writing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the release of a man arrested under the NDPS Act, holding that merely informing a family member of the arrest is insufficient and that the grounds of arrest must also be communicated to such person in writing. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 233]The Court further found that the accused had been remanded to custody without being afforded legal assistance.Justice Surya Pratap Singh observed,“it is hereby observed that in the present case firstly the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the mother of the petitioner [to whom information about the arrest of petitioner was conveyed] and secondly the petitioner was deprived of his right to have legal assistance at the time of hearing on his remand application in the Court.”Holding that these safeguards had not been complied with, the Court added, “In view of above, it is hereby held that the arrest of the petitioner for want of compliance of above-mentioned mandatory provisions stands vitiated. The same is hereby held illegal.”The petitioner, Sajan Singh, was arrested on February 9, 2026, along with a co-accused, in connection with an FIR registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at the Anti-Narcotic Task Force Police Station, Mohali. According to the prosecution, acting on a tip-off, the police intercepted a car in which the two men were travelling and recovered 307 grams of heroin. Following compliance with the formalities under the NDPS Act, the contraband was seized and the petitioner was arrested.Singh approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking a declaration that his arrest and the subsequent remand order dated February 10, 2026, were illegal and unconstitutional.Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Nikhil Ghai argued that the grounds of arrest had not been properly communicated to Singh, that the arrest memo had not been served as mandated, and that he had been produced before the Magistrate without being afforded an opportunity to engage counsel or being provided legal aid. It was further contended that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to any family member.Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, as well as a coordinate Bench ruling in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab.Examining the arrest memo, the High Court noted that while it recorded that information regarding Singh's arrest had been conveyed telephonically to his mother, Ranjit Kaur, there was nothing to indicate that the grounds of arrest had also been communicated to her in writing.Relying on Vihaan Kumar, the Court reiterated that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) extends not only to the arrested person but also to the friend, relative or person nominated by him. The Court observed that the purpose of requiring communication of the grounds of arrest to such persons is to enable them to take immediate steps, including engaging legal representation and seeking the detainee's release.The Court noted: “...the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity...”Accordingly, the Court held that merely informing the petitioner's mother of his arrest, without communicating the grounds of arrest in writing, did not satisfy the constitutional mandate.The Court also relied on State of Delhi v. Ram Avtar @ Rama to underline that safeguards favouring an accused must be strictly complied with and cannot be reduced to mere formalities.The High Court further found fault with the remand proceedings. Perusing the remand order dated February 10, 2026, it noted that the petitioner was not represented by any counsel when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate.The Court said, “when the accused was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate he was not being represented/assisted by any counsel. It is mandatory provision of law that at the time of remand of an accused, large assistance should be ensured to him. As per mandate of the law, if any counsel is not engaged by the petitioner it is obligatory upon the Court, dealing with the remand paper, to ensure legal assistance to the accused by deputing a Legal Aid Counsel for him. But in the present case no counsel was present at the time of first remand of the petitioner.”Referring to Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court added that every arrested person is entitled to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice.In view of the above violations, the Court held the arrest and the subsequent police and judicial remand to be...

Informing Family Of Arrest Alone Not Enough; Grounds Of Arrest Must Also Be Communicated In Writing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Accused was also deprived of right to legal assistance during remand hearing, Court said.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Informing Family Of Arrest Alone Not Enough; Grounds Of Arrest Must Also Be Communicated In Writing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Accused was also deprived of right to legal assistance during remand hearing, Court said.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers