Facts of the Case

  • Arrest and Recovery: The petitioner, Amit Kumar Masuriya, was arrested on October 13, 2024, during a raid by the Special Cell at the premises of M/s Aavkar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. in Ankleshwar, Gujarat, where 518.18 kg of white crystal powder was recovered. Three directors of the company and an employee of Pharma Solution Services were also arrested at the spot.
  • Role of the Petitioner: The prosecution alleged that the petitioner worked as a consultant, middleman, and marketing agent under the name "Masuriya Pharma Solution". He allegedly facilitated a Job Work Agreement dated August 8, 2024, between Aavkar Drugs and Pharma Solution Services for the manufacture of "Phenylephrine Hydrochloride Intermediate," which is otherwise a legal pharmaceutical substance.
  • International Drug Cartel Allegations: The State opposed bail on the grounds that the petitioner was in close contact via WhatsApp with the kingpin of an international drug cartel accused of smuggling massive quantities of cocaine, mephedrone, and marijuana into India.
  • Procedural Flaw: At the time of his arrest and during subsequent productions for transit remand in Gujarat and police custody remand in Delhi, the petitioner was never served with individual, person-specific "grounds of arrest" in writing. The Arrest Memo only contained generic, mechanical "reasons for arrest".

Issues Involved

  • Whether the failure of the investigating agency to supply written, person-specific "grounds of arrest" at the time of arrest or at least two hours prior to production before the Magistrate violates the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS.
  • Whether the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be bypassed or overridden if a fundamental constitutional infraction has occurred during the arrest and remand process.
  • Whether the mandates laid down by the Supreme Court regarding written grounds of arrest apply to arrests executed prior to the formal declaration in the Mihir Rajesh Shah case.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Constitutional Infraction: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the requirement to inform an arrestee of the specific grounds of arrest in writing is a sacrosanct safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Mechanical recording of generic "reasons" in the arrest memo does not satisfy this mandate.
  • Deprivation of Legal Remedy: Due to the non-supply of written grounds, the petitioner was kept in the dark and could not effectively instruct his counsel to oppose either the transit remand application in Gujarat or the police custody remand in Delhi.
  • Direct Parity with Co-Accused: The Delhi High Court had already granted regular bail to the co-accused director, Brijesh Kothia (Brijesh Kothia vs. State), evaluating the exact same transit and police custody remand applications and holding that the arrest stood vitiated due to the non-supply of written grounds.
  • Lack of Conscious Possession & Contraband Discrepancy: No contraband was recovered from or at the instance of the petitioner; he merely acted as a middleman for a lawful pharmaceutical agreement. Furthermore, a material discrepancy existed since the field-testing kit identified the substance as cocaine/methaqualone, whereas the FSL report labeled it as mephedrone.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Gravity of Offence: The State argued that the petitioner is an MBA degree-holder with technical chemical knowledge who actively facilitated a front agreement for an international drug syndicate that smuggled 1,290.967 kg of cocaine/mephedrone.
  • Prospective Application Argument: The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) contended that the Supreme Court's ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah mandated written grounds "henceforth" (from November 6, 2025), meaning it did not apply retrospectively to the petitioner’s arrest on October 13, 2024.
  • No Demonstrable Prejudice: The State argued that no "demonstrable prejudice" was caused to the petitioner by the omission, given the compelling digital evidence (WhatsApp chats) connecting him to the cartel kingpin.

Court Order / Findings

  • Constitutional Primacy of Article 22(1): The High Court held that the mandate for serving grounds of arrest in writing flows directly from Article 22(1) of the Constitution and is a substantive safeguard, not a mere curable procedural irregularity.
  • Rejection of the Prospective Argument: Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India, the Court observed that the rule applies to past arrests as well, reinforcing that Mihir Rajesh Shah did not create a fresh prospective regime but merely re-affirmed pre-existing constitutional principles established in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha.
  • Vitiation of Arrest & Remand: Since the transit remand application was not served on the petitioner, and the police custody application was presented only at the time of production (failing the 2-hour prior window rule), the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge his custody.
  • Grant of Bail: The Court admitted the petitioner to regular bail on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties, clarifying that while this constitutional violation entitles the petitioner to liberty, it does not nullify the investigation or restrict the agency from making a fresh arrest in strict compliance with the law.

Important Clarification

  • The High Court explicitly clarified that the illegality in the arrest and remand procedure does not wipe out or nullify the underlying criminal investigation or trial. The investigating agency remains at liberty to take legally permissible corrective steps, including effecting a fresh arrest of the accused, provided it strictly complies with the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the BNSS, and the NDPS Act.

Sections Involved

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS): Sections 8, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27A, 29, and 37.
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 47 (corresponding to Section 50 of the old CrPC), Section 180, and Section 483.
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Sections 209 and 238B.
  • Constitution of India: Article 22(1).

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783068632_460compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.