NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to two doctors accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, ruling that their arrest was illegal because the investigating authorities failed to provide the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of the arrest.
The bench, which included Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih , emphasized that the mandate established in the landmark Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025) must be strictly followed for all offences, including those under special statutes like the NDPS Act.
Case Background and Court Findings:
- The Allegations: The doctors were allegedly involved in the illegal procurement of a consignment of 2000 Tramadol tablets for their hospital, despite their license excluding the substance.
- Procedural Lapse: While the prosecution argued that the grounds for arrest were orally explained and noted in the arrest memo, the Supreme Court found this insufficient. The court noted that there was no documentary evidence to show that the specific, detailed “grounds of arrest” were communicated to the accused in writing.
- The “Mihir Shah” Precedent: The court reiterated that as per the Mihir Shah verdict, merely reading out the grounds or providing a vague arrest memo does not satisfy the constitutional requirements of Article 22(1). The grounds must be provided in a language the arrestee understands, at least two hours prior to being produced before a magistrate for remand.
Significance of the Ruling:
The court held that any deviation from these principles renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the accused to immediate release. This ruling further harmonizes the arrest procedures across different laws, ensuring that the safeguards previously applied to money laundering (PMLA) and anti-terror (UAPA) cases now apply universally to all criminal arrests in India.
As a result of this procedural non-compliance, the appellants were granted bail, reaffirming the judiciary’s stance that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without adhering to the “procedure established by law”.
