The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that an arrest made in an NDPS case became illegal because mandatory constitutional safeguards were not followed.
Justice Surya Partap Singh ruled that although the prosecution alleged recovery of 307 grams of heroin, the investigating agency failed to comply with Article 22 of the Constitution and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding communication of grounds of arrest and legal representation during remand.
The Court consequently declared both the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, while clarifying that the investigating agency remains free to seek fresh custody in accordance with law.
Background
The petitioner, Sajan Singh, approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking:
- Declaration that his arrest was illegal;
- Quashing of the remand order dated 10 February 2026; and
- Immediate release from custody.
FIR and Allegations
According to the prosecution:
- FIR No. 29 dated 9 February 2026 was registered.
- The FIR alleged commission of an offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
- Acting on secret information, police intercepted a Swift car carrying the petitioner and a co-accused.
- During search, police allegedly recovered 307 grams of heroin from the vehicle after completing the procedure under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.
Following the recovery, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate, who granted police remand.
Issues Before the Court
The High Court examined the following legal issues:
1. Whether the petitioner’s arrest complied with Article 22(1) of the Constitution?
2. Whether the investigating agency properly communicated the grounds of arrest?
3. Whether merely informing a family member of the arrest was sufficient without communicating the grounds of arrest?
4. Whether denial of legal representation during the first remand proceedings rendered the remand illegal?
5. Whether violation of constitutional safeguards entitled the petitioner to immediate release despite the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- The grounds of arrest were never communicated to him in the manner required by law.
- He was not supplied with the arrest memo.
- His family members were not informed about the grounds of arrest.
- He was produced before the Magistrate without legal representation.
- No opportunity was given to engage an advocate of his choice before remand.
- Consequently, both the arrest and remand violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and deserved to be quashed.
The petitioner relied upon:
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
- Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the petition by arguing that:
- All statutory requirements under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had been complied with.
- The constitutional safeguards recognised by the Supreme Court had also been followed.
- Annexure R1/T demonstrated communication of the grounds of arrest.
- The petition was merely an attempt to bypass the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts the grant of bail in serious narcotics offences.
- Therefore, the writ petition deserved dismissal.
Court’s Analysis
Supreme Court Precedents Govern the Case
The High Court observed that the controversy was squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s decisions in:
- Vihaan Kumar
- Mihir Rajesh Shah
- Prabir Purkayastha
Communication of Grounds of Arrest Is Mandatory
The Court reiterated that:
- Article 22(1) creates a mandatory constitutional safeguard.
- Grounds of arrest must be effectively communicated in a language understood by the accused.
- The burden of proving compliance lies upon the investigating agency.
- Non-compliance renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, though it does not invalidate the investigation or trial.
Written Communication Is the Rule
Relying upon Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court observed that:
- Grounds of arrest should ordinarily be communicated in writing.
- If immediate written communication is impossible, oral communication may be made initially, but written grounds must follow within a reasonable time and at least two hours before remand.
- Failure to comply renders the arrest and remand illegal.
Communication Must Also Reach the Nominated Relative
The Court carefully examined the arrest memo relied upon by the State.
Although the petitioner’s mother was informed about the arrest, the record did not establish that the grounds of arrest were communicated to her in writing.
The Court held that informing a family member merely about the arrest is not enough. The constitutional requirement extends to communication of the grounds of arrest so that the family can promptly secure legal assistance.
Denial of Legal Representation During First Remand
The remand order revealed that when the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, he was not represented by any lawyer.
The High Court held that:
- Courts conducting remand proceedings must ensure legal assistance.
- If the accused has not engaged counsel, the Magistrate should appoint a Legal Aid Counsel.
- Failure to provide legal representation amounted to another violation of constitutional safeguards.
Cumulative Effect of Violations
The Court concluded that:
- The petitioner’s mother was not informed of the grounds of arrest.
- The petitioner had no legal assistance during the remand hearing.
Taken together, these violations vitiated the arrest itself.
Final Decision
The Punjab & Haryana High Court:
- Allowed the writ petition.
- Declared the arrest illegal.
- Declared both police and judicial remand illegal.
- Directed the immediate release of the petitioner.
- Clarified that the investigating agency is at liberty to seek fresh custody after complying with the constitutional requirements laid down by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision underscores that constitutional safeguards governing arrest are not mere procedural formalities but substantive protections flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. While the allegations under the NDPS Act remained subject to investigation, the Court held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner’s nominated relative and denial of legal assistance during the first remand rendered both the arrest and remand illegal. At the same time, the Court preserved the investigating agency’s liberty to seek fresh custody in accordance with the law after complying with the mandatory constitutional requirements.
CASE DETAILS:
Sajan Singh versus State of Punjab | CRWP-4021-2026
Date of Decision: 13.07.2026
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 