Madras High Court
Mujipur Rahuman vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 23 July, 2026
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 23.07.2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
CRL OP(MD). No. 11703 of 2026
Mujipur Rahuman ...Petitioner
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
NIBCID Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime No.6 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS
PRAYER :-
For Bail in Cr.No. 6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER :
The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 05.02.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w.
20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.6 of 2026 on the file of
the respondent police, seeks bail.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
2. The case of the prosecution is that, The petitioner is arrayed as A1 in
this case. On 05.02.2026 at about 2.30 hours, the respondent Police received
secret information regarding the transportation of ganja. Accordingly, the
police team, after obtaining due authorisation, proceeded near Chinthamani
Toll Gate and intercepted a Car bearing Registration No. TN 58 3238. After
complying with the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, the vehicle was
searched and 131.816 kilograms of ganja were recovered from them.
Thereafter, all the accused were arrested and brought to the police station and
the case was registered. They were subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, though
the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, the grounds of
arrest were not furnished to him immediately upon his arrest, as mandated
under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that even
as on date, the grounds of arrest have not been served on the petitioner. Hence,
the petitioner was not in position to effectively conduct the bail application and
also prevented from defending his remand. According to the learned counsel,
such non furnishing of grounds of arrest has caused serious prejudice to the
petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
4. The learned counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution
case and relying upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with
regard to the supply of grounds of attest, submitted that the mandate under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India the grounds of arrest were properly
explained to him. It is further submitted that the report contemplated under
Section 52 of the NDPS Act was also furnished to him, and the information
relating to his arrest was duly communicated in accordance with law.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
6.The law is well settled regarding the non supply of ground of arrest in
the following Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh
Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066] and
Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another [2025 INSC 162] .
7.By following the above Judgments, the issue relating to the non-
furnishing of the grounds of arrest has been considered by me in Vignesh v.
State through Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur Unit, Chennai, in
Crl.O.P. No.34406 of 2025, by order dated 27.02.2026. In the said decision,
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
this Court has observed as follows:
“The Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana
and another [2025 INSC 162] has held that, the Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that the
information about the grounds of arrest to be provided to
the arrested person in such a manner, that sufficient
context of the basic facts constituting the grounds is
important and communicated to the arrested person. It
further reads that the burden of compliance of Article
22(1) is on the persons, who is exercising the power of
arrest. Further elaborating the scope of Article 21,
Article 22 and other connected provisions, the Apex
Court had concluded as follows:
“11. The view taken in the case of Pankaj Bansal was
reiterated by this Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha.
In paragraph nos. 28 and 29, this Court held thus:
“28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the
communication of the grounds is exactly the identical.
Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the
“grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may
be, must be communicated in writing. Thus,
interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental
right as made by the Constitution Bench while
examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to
communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the
requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or
the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested
in connection with an offence or a person placed under
preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1)
and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and
cannot be breached under any situation. Non-
compliance of this constitutional requirement and
statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the
detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.”
(emphasis added)
12. This Court held that the language used in Articles 22(1)
and 22(5) regarding communication of the grounds is
identical, and therefore, this Court held that interpretation
of Article 22(5) made by the Constitution Bench in the case
of Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, shall ipso facto apply
to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the
requirement to communicate the ground of arrest is
concerned. We may also note here that in paragraph 21, in
the case of Prabir Purkayastha, this Court also dealt with
the effect of violation of Article 22(1) by holding that any
infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the
process of arrest and remand. Paragraph 21 reads thus:
“21. The right to be informed about the grounds of
arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India and any infringement of this fundamental
right would vitiate the process of arrest and
remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been
filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of
arresting the accused and the grant of initial police
custody remand to the accused.”
(emphasis added)
13. In the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of
India, in paragraph 20, this Court held thus:
“20. It is an admitted position that the detenu does
not know English. The grounds of detention, which
were served on the detenu, have been drawn up in
English. It is true that Shri C.L. Antali, Police
Inspector, who served the grounds of detention on
the detenu, has filed an affidavit stating that he had
fully explained the grounds of detention in Gujarati
to the detenu. But, that is not a sufficient
compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution, which requires that the grounds of
detention must be “communicated” to the detenu.
“Communicate” is a strong word. It means that
sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting
the “grounds” should be imparted effectively and
fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he
understands. The whole purpose of communicating
the “ground” to the detenu is to enable him to make
a purposeful and effective representation. If the
“grounds” are only verbally explained to the
detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a
language which he understands, then that purpose6/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026is not served, and the constitutional mandate in
Article 22(5) is infringed. If any authority is needed
on this point, which is so obvious from Article
22(5), reference may be made to the decisions of
this Court in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra
[1962 Supp 2 SCR 918 : AIR 1962 SC 911 : (1962)
1 Cri LJ 797] and Hadibandhu Das v. District
Magistrate [(1969) 1 SCR 227 : AIR 1969 SC 43 :
1969 Cri LJ 274] .”
(emphasis added)
Therefore, as far as Article 22(1) is concerned,
compliance can be made by communicating
sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting
the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The
grounds should be effectively and fully
communicated to the arrestee in the manner in
which he will fully understand the same. Therefore,
it follows that the grounds of arrest must be
informed in a language which the arrestee
understands. That is how, in the case of Pankaj
Bansal, this Court held that the mode of conveying
the grounds of arrest must necessarily be
meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose.
However, under Article 22(1), there is no
requirement of communicating the grounds of
arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates
the right of every person arrested to consult an7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026advocate of his choice and the right to be defended
by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not
communicated to the arrestee, as soon as may be,
he will not be able to effectively exercise the right
to consult an advocate. This requirement
incorporated in Article 22(1) also ensures that the
grounds for arresting the person without a warrant
exist. Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty
under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an
important fundamental right is curtailed, it is
necessary that the person concerned must
understand on what grounds he has been arrested.
That is why the mode of conveying information of
the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the
objects stated above.
….
“CONCLUSIONS:
21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested
of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of
Article 22(1);
b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be
provided to the arrested person in such a manner
that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts
constituting the grounds is imparted and
communicated to the arrested person effectively in8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026the language which he understands. The mode and
method of communication must be such that the
object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance
with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden
will always be on the Investigating Officer/ Agency
to prove compliance with the requirements of
Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1)
will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the
accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover,
it will amount to a violation of the right to personal
liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, noncompliance with the requirements of
Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused.
Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of
remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it
will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and
trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet
will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate
under Article 22(1);
e) When an arrested person is produced before a
Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the
Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with
Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has
been made; and
f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it
is the duty of the court to forthwith order the
9/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
release of the accused. That will be a ground to
grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant
of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect
the power of the court to grant bail when the
violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is
established.”
8. In Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
[2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066], the Apex Court after observing
the Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India [SLP(Crl) No.9220 -21
of 2023] and the principles laid down in Vihaan Kumar’s
case cited supra as observed in paragraph No.56 as follows:
“56. In conclusion, it is held that:
(i) The constitutional mandate and informing the arrestee the
grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all
statutes, including the 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 where, the arresting officer/ person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after
the 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 the 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 set free.”
9. Further the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in Karan
10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
Singh’s case cited supra, after considering both Mihir Rajesh
Shah‘s case and Sri Darshan’s case has observed in
paragraph No.19 as follows:
“19. There is one more aspect of the case. The grievance
about the alleged procedural lapse has been raised very
belatedly i.e., after more than one year and nine months of the
arrest and there is no whisper of any prejudice being caused
to the petitioner, who was represented by counsel from day
one. Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan has
held that while compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory,
the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a
“prejudice-oriented test” when examining alleged procedural
lapses and, further held that mere absence of written grounds
does no ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in
demonstrable prejudice by denial of a fair opportunity to the
accused to defend themselves.”
10. In State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan reported in 2025
SCC Online 1702, it has been specifically observed by the
Apex Court that the arrestee has to establish that there is a
demonstrable prejudice. Considering the above line of
judgments, this Court is of the view that, after passing of the
judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah‘s case, it is mandatory on the
part of the every arresting officer to intimate the grounds of
arrest in writing in the language he/ she understands, it is a
constitutional mandate and informing the arrestee the
grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all
statutes. Further it is held that the communications of this
grounds of arrest in all the offences has to be given to the
11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
arrestee at the earliest, which means that it need not be given
at the time of arrest but within the reasonable time.
11. In Vihaan Kumar’s case, it is held that non-compliance of
Article 22(1) of Constitution of India will be a violation of
fundamental rights of the accused and vitiates in arrest of the
accused and the orders passed by the Criminal Court of
remand are also vitiated. It is also further added that, it will
not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial but at the
same time, filing of the charge sheet will not validate the
breach of the constitutional mandate under the said Article
22(1).
12. In Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. vs. The State [Criminal
Appeal No.4505 of 2025, dated 14.10.2025] after considering
the Vihaan Kumar’s case, Sri Darshan’s case and Kasireddy
Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
[Criminal Appeal No.2808 of 2025 dated 23.05.2025] has
held as follows:
“In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.(supra) the
facts governing are quite different. It was a case dealing with
the cancellation of bail where the charge sheet had been filed
and the grounds of detention were served immediately. This
Court has, in fact, given its approval to the decision in Vihaan
Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.(supra). Similarly, in
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Ors. (supra), this Court was pleased to hold in para 27 that
the object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest
should be communicated has been explained by this Court in
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr (supra). Therefore,12/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026the law as laid down in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana &
Anr (supra) has been approved and reiterated in the
abovesaid decisions.
In such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that
the present appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground
that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the
time of securing the appellants has not been complied with.
Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the
case. However, while setting aside the order passed by the
High Court and consequently setting aside the order of arrest
and remand, we would only say that liberty is granted to the
respondents to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is
made out.
Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court
before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an
adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at
the time of securing an accused.”
13. The above observations shows that, in Sri Darshan’s case,
the Apex Court has approved the decision of Vihaan Kumar’s
case and the above order was passed concerned with the
cancellation of bail and also the fact that the grounds of
detention was served immediately on the person in that case.”
8. In this present bail application, it is argued that the petitioner was
intimated with the grounds of arrest and by relying the same, it is contended
that, intimation regarding grounds of arrest was not sufficiently explained to the
petitioner, which is extracted hereunder:
13/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 202614/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
9.The above intimation regarding the grounds of arrest issued to the
petitioner by the officer shows that, the petitioner herein was arrested for illegal
possession of Ganja. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued
that the information regarding the grounds of arrest contains every information
for the arrest of the petitioner herein. From the outside view, it might looks like
the arrest intimation notice gives the place of seizure, dates on which the
seizure was effected and the overtacts attributed against the petitioner, etc., but
the closer scrutiny of the same reveals it does not contain basic facts, which is
necessary for the petitioner to defend himself from the allegations levelled at
the time of exercising his right of seeking bail. It is to be noted that the
petitioner herein was arrested based on series of events and it is stated that prior
to search and seizure, the prior information was received, which was recorded
by the Search Officer; that after intimating to the petitioner, the search was
conducted, the contraband was seized under the seizure mahazar in the presence
of witnesses, statement was recorded from the accused and he was placed under
arrest, etc., but none of the facts stated were served on the petitioner herein.
10.As on today though investigation in this case has been concluded,
final report has been filed as observed in Vihaan Kumar v. Union of India, in
paragraph 21(d) that the filing of the final report will not validate the breach of
15/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. So
far no copies were served on the petitioner and thereby they have not in a
position to contest the bail application effectively. Further it is stated that since
there is no proper communication of grounds of arrest they were not in position
to successfully raised objection at the time of remand.
11. I am of the view that the petitioner herein demonstrated that, he
suffered prejudice by denial of fair opportunity to defend himself. Since, there
was no proper compliance of informing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner
herein and it resulted in causing prejudice to his interest in defending the case
and prevented him from filing the bail petition and effectively submit his side
case on merits, it is clear violation of Article 22(1) and which resulted in
custody of the petitioner rendered illegal, hence this Court is inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this
Court to paragraph 55 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir
Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another, wherein certain remedial
measures have been indicated and prays that they may be permitted to the
supply once again the grounds of arrest and also to take appropriate measures
16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
as observed by the Apex Court. In para 55 of the above said judgment reads as
follows:
“55. It goes without saying that if the above said schedule
for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not
adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling
the release of the arrestee. On such release, an
application for remand or custody, if required, will be
moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same,
after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing setting
forth the explanation for non-supply thereof within the
above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such an
application, the magistrate shall decide the same
expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission
thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.”
13.It is the remedial measures given to the investigating agency for the
purpose of adhering the compliance of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and since the Apex Court in the above paragraph has very clearly indicate
the steps to be taken by the investigating Officers in case of accused being
released on the ground of violation of Article 22(1), granting further liberty is
not necessary. With the above observation, the bail is granted with the
following conditions.
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to
the satisfaction of the learned District Judge, Principal Special
Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further
conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police
daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders:
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the
offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the
commission of which he/she is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation
or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned
Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action
against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions
have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 51730].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 269 BNS.
(K R S J)
23.07.2026
TMTo
1.The District Judge, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
NIBCID Police Station,
Madurai. (Crime No.6 of 2026)
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11703 of 2026
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
TM
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No. 11703 of 2026
Date : 23.07.2026
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
