Delhi High Court
Saqlain Raza Khan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 March, 2026
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1998/2025, CRL.M.A. 16274/2025 & CRL.M.A.
16275/2025
SAQLAIN RAZA KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Meghan, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Narender Singh.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.76/2024 of
PS Crime Branch for offence under Section 20/25/29 NDPS Act.
1.1 This bail application came up for the first hearing on 26.05.2025
before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned
before different benches. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications,
this application also was transferred to this bench.
1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel for
accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Narender
BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 1 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
Signature Not Verified 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
Digitally Signed 996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:08:22 -07’00’
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
Singh.
2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that on the basis of secret
information, the police party intercepted a car, in which were two occupants,
namely Nibash Biswas and Saurabh Singh. On being searched, 80 kg of
ganja was recovered from that car. The accused/applicant is registered
owner of that car. The role ascribed to the accused/applicant is of a
conspirator under Section 29 NDPS Act and as regards evidence of the
alleged conspiracy, the investigator collected material according to which
the accused/applicant along with the other two co-accused made three trips
to Odisha prior to being apprehended and they stayed in the same hotel.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that there is no
sufficient material to convict him. Most significantly, learned counsel for
accused/applicant contends that the accused/applicant was never furnished
grounds of arrest, which is a serious violation of his constitutional right
under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Narender Singh opposes the bail
application on the ground that the quantity of contraband recovered from the
accused/applicant is a commercial quantity, so twin conditions under
Section 37 NDPS Act would come into play. As regards supply of grounds
of arrest, it is contended by learned APP that the same were supplied
through the application filed before the learned trial court for first remand.
BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 2 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
Signature Not Verified GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
By:DIKSHA RAWAT 01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:08:12 -07’00’
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
5. In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
2025 INSC 1288, the Supreme Court recapitulated the legal position as
regards the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused and held
thus:
“24. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), of which, one of us was a
member (B.R. Gavai, J., as he then was), this Court reiterated the
principle laid down in the above judgment, while dealing with
offences under UAPA and held that any individual arrested for
alleged commission of offences under the UAPA or any other offence
for that matter, has both a fundamental and a statutory right to be
informed in writing such grounds of arrest. The Court further held
that a copy of such written grounds must be furnished to the arrested
person at the earliest without any exception observing that the
communication provided under Article 22 and Section 50 of CrPC
1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023)is not a mere procedural
formality but a vital safeguard with the ultimate objective to enable
the arrested person to effectively consult legal aid and be prepared to
raise objections in remand hearing and apply for his/her bail. The
right to life and personal liberty, safeguarded under Articles 20, 21
and 22 of the Constitution, stands as the paramount fundamental
right. Accordingly, infringement of these constitutional protections
commands rigorous judicial scrutiny and strict enforcement.
25. It was said that any breach of the constitutional safeguards
provided under Article 22 would vitiate the lawfulness of arrest and
subsequent remand and entitle the arrested person to be set at
liberty…
56. In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds
of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including
offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the
arrestee in the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest,
it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing
within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to
production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before theBAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 3 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIAGIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,Signature Not Verified 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
Digitally Signed 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:08:03 -07’00’
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
magistrate.
iv)In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent
remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to
be set free.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Going by the above cited legal position, there cannot be a dispute that
failure to furnish grounds of arrest would vitiate arrest, thereby entitling the
accused to bail.
7. In the present case also, prosecution does not dispute the
abovementioned legal position. The stand taken by the prosecution is that
grounds of arrest were duly supplied to the accused/applicant by way of the
application for first remand filed before the trial court. But neither in the
first remand order of the learned trial court nor even in the application for
first remand, it is disclosed that copy of the application was furnished to the
accused/applicant. There is no endorsement on the ordersheet of the trial
court or even the first remand application reflecting that a copy thereof was
supplied to the accused/applicant. That being so, it is clear that a
constitutional right of the accused/applicant was violated.
8. So far as the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act are
concerned, of course, the statutory requirements cannot make inroads into
the same. But in the present situation, it is the constitutional requirement,
which stands at a footing much higher than the statutory requirements. It is
the constitutional right of an arrested person to be supplied with grounds of
arrest in view of the above cited law.
BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 4 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
Signature Not Verified 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
Digitally Signed 996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:07:53 -07’00’
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
9. In view of above discussion, the application is allowed and the
accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Accompanying applications also stand
disposed of.
10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID – 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:07:41 -07’00’
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 19, 2026/dr
BAIL APPLIN. 1998/2025 Page 5 of 5 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
