Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 July, 2026
CRWP-3920-2026 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-3920-2026
Date of decision: 13.07.2026
RAVINDER SINGH
...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH. J.
1. By invoking the jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the following writ petition has been filed praying
to:-
“a. hold and declare that entire exercise culminating into
arrest of the petitioner, by the Investigating Agency, and the
subsequent remand proceedings conducted before the
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
learned Judicial Magistrate-cum- Area Magistrate is without
jurisdiction, illegal and unconstitutional;
b. to set aside and quash the action of arrest of the petitioner
and his subsequent incarceration by way of remand order
dated 10.02.2026;
c. to release the petitioner from custody forthwith.”
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as NDPS only,
the FIR No.29 dated 09.02.2026 has been lodged in Police Station Anti-
Narcotic Task Force, Sector 79, Mohali.
3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the above-
mentioned FIR was lodged at the instance of ASI Hardeep Singh. According to
prosecution, it was reported by the above-named police officer that on
09.02.2026 when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for usual
patrolling duty in the area of Police Station Makhu District Ferozepur, a reliable
source gave him a tip-off that ‘Ravinder Singh @ Captain’ (the petitioner
herein) and ‘Sajan Singh’ (co-accused) were involved in drug trafficking, and
that on that day they were travelling in a white coloured car, make Swift,
bearing registration No.PB-46AL-8793 for the supply of Heroin in the villages
surroundings village Makhu. According to above-named police officer the
information being reliable he immediately sent an intimation to the Police
Station for registration of FIR and an information-memo, as prescribed under
Section 42 of NDPS Act, to Senior Police Officer.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
4. According to prosecution, thereafter a picket was laid on the link
road leading from Talwandi Nepala to village Chak Marhana, where the above-
said car, occupied by above-named two persons, was intercepted. As per
prosecution, after enquiries about the names and addresses of the occupant of
the car, they were served with notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act. According
to prosecution, during search of the car 307 grams of Heroin was recovered,
which was seized vide separate seizure memo.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that, thereafter, requisite
formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband and formal arrest of
the accused were performed and further investigation taken up.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the present case, the arrest of the petitioner has been made by the Investigating
Officer in an illegal manner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner
firstly, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner and
secondly, the arrest memo was not served upon him, as per the mandate of law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that another lapse
committed in the present case is that, that without providing any legal assistance
the petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate and
without affording him an opportunity to engage a lawyer of his choice, to
defend him, he was remanded into custody. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has further contended that, in addition to above, any family member
of the petitioner was not informed regarding his arrest nor the ground of arrest
and arrest-memo were communicated to them, which is in violation of the
settled principle of law..
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
8. In support of his above-mentioned arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has referred to the principles of law propounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vihaan Kumar v. State of
Haryana and Another’ (2025) 5 SSC 799, in the case of ‘Prabir Purkayastha Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)’ (2024) 8 SCC 254 and in the case of ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another‘ (2026) 1 SCC 500.
9. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also
referred to the observations recorded by this Court in the case of ‘Ashok Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of Punjab’ CRM-M-16156-2025.
10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner since there is
violation of above-mentioned mandatory provisions of law, the arrest of the
petitioner by the police and subsequent order of remand passed by the learned
Magistrate are illegal. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that by accepting the present petition, the impugned order with
regard to remand of petitioner be set aside and the petitioner be released from
custody.
11. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned
arguments. The learned State counsel has contended that instant case is one
wherein all the legal formalities with regard to arrest of the petitioner, by the
police, vis-a-vis his remand by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, have been
complied with. According to learned State counsel not only there is compliance
of Section 42 and 50 of NDPS Act, but also the compliance of all the directions
issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vihaan Kumar’
(supra), ‘Prabir Purkayastha‘ (supra) and ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah‘ (supra). The
learned State counsel has further contended that the ground taken in the present
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
petition is non-communication of ground of arrest to the petitioner. With regard
to above, while referring to Annexure R1/T to the supplementary short reply,
the learned State counsel has contended that there was proper compliance of
above-mentioned provisions of law.
12. While claiming that a serious offence has been committed by the
petitioner, who was found in possession of 307 grams of Heroin, it has been
contended by learned State counsel that in fact to wriggle-out of the rigors of
Section 37 of NDPS Act, the present petition has been filed on false and
frivolous grounds. The learned State counsel has also contended that, as per
law, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail, and therefore a
smoke screen has been created by the petitioner, with the intent to seek release
from judicial custody. The learned State counsel has claimed that the present
petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal.
13. The record has been perused carefully.
14. In the present case, at the very out-set, it is pertinent to mention
that the relevant law has been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of ‘Vihaan Kumar’ (supra) and ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah‘ (supra).
15. In the case of Vihaan Kumar’ (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has observed that;
a. the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of
arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India;
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
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
imparted and communicated to the arrested person
effectively, in the 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, non-compliance 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 release of the
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
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.
16. Similarly in the case of ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah‘ (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has observed that it is mandatory upon the police
officer before arrest of an accused in any case, to communicate the ground of
arrest to the accused person and if in any case the same could not be provided
due to exceptional circumstances than at all cost they shall be provided to the
accused at least two hours before production of the arrestee for remand
proceedings before the Magistrate and in case of non-compliance the remand
would be illegal and the accused shall be at liberty to set free. It has been
further observed that;-
a. 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);
b. the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to
the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
c. 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
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee
for remand proceedings before the Magistrate;
d. in case of non-compliance of above, the arrest and
subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person
will be at liberty to be set.
17. It has been further observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that the provision of law under Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS 2023)
does not provide for a specific mode of or time-frame for communication of the
grounds of arrest to the person arrested. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in the case of Prabir Purkayastha, it has been held that the grounds of
arrest be conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest, which
means it need not be given at the time of arrest but within a reasonable time
thereafter, for offences under all the statues, which period would be as has been
laid down above.
18. With regard to facts and circumstances of the present case the
principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
‘Prabir Purkayastha‘ (supra) are also relevant. In the above-mentioned case, it
has been observed that:-
a. from a holistic reading of various judgments pertaining to
the law of preventive detention including the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Harikisan, Wherein, the
provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India have
been interpreted, we find that it has been the consistent view
of this Court that the grounds on which the liberty of a
citizen is curtailed, must be communicated in writing so as
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
to enable him to seek remedial measures against the
deprivation of liberty.
b. the language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India regarding the communication of the
grounds is exactly identical. Neither of the constitutional
provisions require that the “ground 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.
c. 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.
d. the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted
by this Court in Pankaj Bansal laying down beyond the pale
of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest.
Hence, the fervent plea of the learned ASG that there was no
requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest
in writing to the appellant-accused is noted to be rejected.
e. once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute
in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down
that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused
in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of
the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of
Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”
19. In the light of above-mentioned principles of law, if the facts and
circumstances of the present case are analyzed, it transpires that the copy of
memo with regard to information of ground of arrest is available on record as
Annexure R1/T [to the supplementary short reply]. The above-mentioned arrest
memo reads as under:-
Grounds of Arrest of accused and Intimation to heirs.
Grounds of arrest:- in the presence of the following
witnesses, myself, ASI, disclosed my name, rank and
posting to accused Ravinder Singh @ Captan that I, ASI
Hardeep Singh No.484/SMS being the Investigating
officer posted at ANTF, Bathinda Range, Bathinda. Today
you have been apprehended by the police party and as
per the procedure I, ASI recovered 307 grams Heroin
from a transparent small polythene envelope lying near the
gear leaver of car make Swift bearing No.PB-46-AL-8793
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
of white colour. You have kept 307 Heroin illegally in
your possession, so you have committed an offence under
Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, so you are being arrested
under Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act.
Conveyed to me
Sd/-
Ravinder Singh @ Captan
Arrest of accused
In the presence of the following witnesses, I, ASI disclosed
my name, rank and posting to accused Ravinder Singh &
Captan as per the procedure and conveyed that you have
committed offence under Section 21/61/85 of
NDPS Act and the said offence is being non-bailable, so you
are being arrested.
Q. That you have committed an offence under Section
21/61/85 NDPS Act which is non bailable and whether you
want to convey regarding your arrest to your family
member/friend or an advocate.
A. Regarding my arrest information may be furnished to my
brother Kuldeep Singh on her mobile phone No. 95416-
59721.
Sd/-
Ravinder Singh @ Captan
20. A bare perusal of the arrest memo shows that the above-mentioned
arrest memo no where contains that before arrest of the petitioner any
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
satisfaction was recorded by the Investigating Officer to the effect that there is
sufficient ground to arrest the petitioner. For the sake of argument even if it is
assumed that any such satisfaction was recorded somewhere in the case diary or
on any other paper, which might not have been placed on record. In this petition
the contents of above-mentioned memo shows that grounds of arrest were never
communicated to the family member of the petitioner to whom information
about his arrest was given. With regard to above, the relevant contents of the
arrest memo is as under:-
As per wish of Ravinder Singh @ Captan, information regarding
his arrest was conveyed to his brother Kuldeep Singh on his mobile
phone No.95416-59721. Grounds of arrest and information to the
heirs were prepared. Witnesses are being witnessing the memo.
Conveyed to me.
Sd/-
Ravinder Singh @ Captan
Witness:
Sd/-
1. C-II Nanddeep Singh 941/SMS
ANTF, Bathinda Range, Bathinda.
Sd/-
2. Sr. Constable Charanjit Singh 968/SMS
ANTF, Bathinda, Range, Bathinda.
Sd/-
Hardeep Singh, ASI
ANTF,
Bathinda Range, Bathinda
Dated:-09.02.2026.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
21. With regard to above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of ‘Vihaan Kumar’ (supra) has observed that the grounds of arrest should
be communicated to the friend, relative or person nominated by the arrested
person also. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that:-
the purpose of inserting Section 50-A CrPC, making it
obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the
arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the
arrested person, is to ensure that they would be able to take
immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the
arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested
person, because of his detention, may not have immediate
and easy access to the legal process for securing his release,
which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives
and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers,
briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail
at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the
grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his
relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to
enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest
but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through
his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his
release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the
fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to
the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such
other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1)
of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which,
such arrest may be rendered illegal.
22. It shall not be out of place to mention here that in the above-
mentioned case, it has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India that on failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of
arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. With regard to
above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘State of Delhi Vs.
Ram Avtar @ Rama (2011) 12 SCC 207 has observed that:-
“It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that when a
safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused,
compliance therewith should be strictly construed. As already held
by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the
theory of “substantial compliance” would not be applicable to such
situations, particularly where the punishment provided is very
harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudice against the suspect.
The safeguard cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be
construed in its proper perspective, compliance therewith must be
ensured. The law has provided a right to the accused, and makes it
obligatory upon the officer concerned to make the suspect aware of
such right. The officer had prior information of the raid; thus, he
was expected to be prepared for carrying out his duties of
investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the
Act. While discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the
prosecution has to establish that information regarding the
existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. If such
information is incomplete and ambiguous, then it cannot be
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
construed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act.
Noncompliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would
cause prejudice to the accused, and, therefore, amount to the
denial of a fair trial.”
23. In the light of above-mentioned principles of law, if the factual
matrix of the present case is analyzed, it is hereby observed that there is no
evidence to show that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the brother
of the petitioner in writing. Thus, it is hereby held that there is violation of
above-mentioned mandate of the law.
24. Another aspect to be taken into consideration in the present
petition is that after arrest on 09.02.2026, the petitioner was produced in the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate and on that day the order recorded by the
learned Judicial Magistrate was as under:-
“Accused along with Case Property i.e. 307 Swift Car
bearing no PB46-AL-8273 produced before me, attorney being
Illqua Magistrate of P.S. Makhu. Request for 05 days Police
remand of accused has been made today. Heard. In order to
facilitate the further investigation on the present matter and further
to know about the last as to from whom the present accused has
bought the alleged contraband and to whom they were going to
supply the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary. Accordingly,
both accused remanded to Police Custody till 13.2.2026. The IO is
directed to get the medical examination of the accused conducted
before Police interrogation.”
25. A bare perusal of above-mentioned order shows that on 10.02.2026
when the accused was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate he was
not being represented/assisted by any counsel. It is mandatory provision of law
that at the time of remand of an accused, large assistance should be ensured to
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
him. As per mandate of the law, if any counsel is not engaged by the petitioner,
it is obligatory upon the Court, dealing with the remand paper, to ensure legal
assistance to the accused by deputing a Legal Aid Counsel for him. But in the
present case no counsel was present at the time of first remand of the petitioner.
26. With regard to above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah‘ (supra) has observed that the arrested person is
entitled to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice.
27. If the facts and circumstances prevailing in the present case are
analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that this
right available to the petitioner, too, has been violated.
28. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of above-
mentioned discussion, it is hereby observed that in the present case firstly the
grounds of arrest were not communicated to the brother of the petitioner [to
whom information about the arrest of petitioner was conveyed] and secondly
the petitioner was deprived of his right to have legal assistance at the time of
hearing on his remand application in the Court.
29. In view of above, it is hereby held that the arrest of the petitioner
for want of compliance of above-mentioned mandatory provisions stands
vitiated. The same is hereby held illegal.
30. In view of observations in the foregoing paragraphs, it is hereby
observed that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The same is hereby
allowed accordingly. The arrest of the petitioner is hereby held to be illegal.
Thus, police/judicial remand of the petitioner, too, is hereby held illegal. The
petitioner is hereby ordered to be released forthwith in the present case.
Obvious to say that in view of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-3920-2026 –
of India in the case of ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah‘ (supra), after release, the
Investigating Agency/prosecution can move fresh application for remand or
custody of the petitioner, while complying with the conditions prescribed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
13.07.2026.
vipin Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.07.14 20:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
