Grounds of arrest and NDPS bail safeguards were found substantially complied with, leaving commercial-quantity bail barred.

Arrest was held not vitiated where the notices communicated the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest, including possession, transportation and suspected dealing in heroin, and where relatives or nominated persons were also informed by notice and telephone. In the absence of reliable material showing deliberate or prejudicial delay, the constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(1) and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were treated as substantially complied with. In a commercial-quantity NDPS matter, the petitioners also failed to overcome the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, so bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest was vitiated for non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest to the arrested persons and their relatives or nominated persons under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in view of the embargo under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest was vitiated for non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest to the arrested persons and their relatives or nominated persons under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: The notices served on the petitioners were found to contain not merely intimation of arrest but the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest, namely possession, transportation and dealing with suspected heroin recovered from the vehicle. The record also showed issuance of notices to relatives or nominated persons and telephonic intimation. In the absence of reliable material showing deliberate or prejudicial delay in communication, the Court held that the constitutional and statutory requirements were substantially complied with.

Conclusion: The arrest was not vitiated for non-compliance with Article 22(1) or Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in view of the embargo under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The seizure involved heroin of commercial quantity. Since the petitioners failed to establish non-compliance with the mandatory arrest safeguards, they did not surmount the statutory restrictions governing bail in NDPS matters.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to bail and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The bail plea failed on both the alleged illegality of arrest and the statutory restrictions applicable to commercial-quantity NDPS offences.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arrest notice and the notice to relatives or nominated persons disclose the basic facts necessitating arrest, and the record shows substantial compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards, the arrest is not rendered illegal merely because the communication is challenged as delayed; in a commercial-quantity NDPS case, bail remains barred unless the statutory conditions are satisfied.

---