Introduction
Can the stringent bail conditions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) override the constitutional rights of an arrested person?
The Delhi High Court addressed this question in Suddhi v. State decided on 3 November 2026. Justice Mini Pushkarna granted regular bail to an accused in a case involving the alleged recovery of 32.230 kg of charas. The Court held that failure to provide the grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and vitiated the arrest. The decision highlights the importance of constitutional safeguards even in cases involving serious offences and commercial quantities of narcotic substances.
What Were the Facts of the Case?
The case arose from FIR No. 266/2023, registered on 19 October 2023 by the Special Cell, Trans Yamuna Range, Delhi, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, the police received secret information about an inter-state drug syndicate allegedly smuggling contraband from Nepal. Acting on this information, a police team apprehended the petitioner near Paper Market, Gazipur, Delhi.
The police allegedly recovered 15 sealed packets containing 32.230 kg of charas from his vehicle. During further investigation, two other individuals were also apprehended in connection with the alleged syndicate.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). His counsel argued that the authorities had not supplied him with the grounds of arrest. He also relied on the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail on similar grounds.
What Does Article 22(1) Provide?
Article 22(1) of the Constitution protects individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention. It provides that an arrested person must be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds of arrest and must not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
The communication of grounds of arrest is not merely a procedural formality. It enables an accused person to understand the reasons for the arrest, consult legal counsel and effectively challenge their detention.
The Supreme Court examined this safeguard in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023). It emphasised the importance of providing written grounds of arrest to persons arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
In Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Supreme Court clarified the prospective application of the requirement laid down in Pankaj Bansal, explaining that the direction to furnish written grounds applied from the date of that judgment, 3 October 2023.
Why Did the Court Consider Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving specified offences, including offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.
Under this provision, the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail. Where the application is opposed, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail.
In the present case, the prosecution argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) made the requirement concerning written grounds of arrest applicable only from 6 November 2025.
However, the High Court distinguished that decision from the earlier judgments concerning special statutes. It observed that Pankaj Bansal and Ram Kishor Arora dealt with special legislation and were relevant to the NDPS proceedings before it.
What Did the Delhi High Court Decide?
The Court noted that the petitioner had been arrested on 19 October 2023, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Pankaj Bansal. The State also conceded before the Court that the grounds of arrest had not been provided to the petitioner.
The High Court held that Article 22(1) is a substantive constitutional safeguard and not a mere procedural formality. It observed that failure to supply the grounds of arrest vitiated the arrest.
The Court further relied on its earlier decision granting bail to the co-accused, Pahalman Budha Magar v. State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 21 January 2026. It held that the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not override the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 22(1).
Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to conditions, including a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with one surety of the same amount, monthly reporting to the investigating officer and restrictions against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the ongoing trial.
Conclusion
The decision in Suddhi v. State (NCT of Delhi) reinforces the principle that statutory restrictions on bail cannot eliminate constitutional protections available to an arrested person.
Even where an allegation involves a commercial quantity of narcotic substances, the investigating authorities must comply with the constitutional requirements governing arrest. The judgment highlights that the protection of personal liberty under Article 22(1) remains relevant even in proceedings involving stringent special laws.
