Delhi HC grants bail in NDPS case over missing written arrest grounds
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has ruled that failing to hand an accused person written grounds of arrest is not a technicality — it is a constitutional breach. In granting bail to an NDPS accused held for over 16 months, Justice Bhambhani has put investigating agencies on notice: Article 22(1) compliance must happen at the point of arrest, not as an afterthought before a remand court.
Key Takeaways
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Brijesh Kothia , accused under the NDPS Act , on 14 May .
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that non-supply of written grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Kothia was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell from Ankleshwar, Gujarat on 13 October 2024 and had spent over 16 months in judicial custody.
The court rejected the prosecution's argument that no binding obligation existed at the time of arrest, calling the omission a 'substantive constitutional infraction.' The ruling clarifies that arrest illegality does not void the investigation — a fresh, compliant arrest remains permissible.
Bail conditions include a personal bond of ₹1 lakh , surrender of passport, and a bar on witness contact.
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Brijesh Kothia, an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, ruling that the investigating agency's failure to furnish written 'grounds of arrest' constituted a violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The order was delivered on Wednesday, 14 May by a single-judge bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
Background of the Case
Kothia was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell from Ankleshwar, Gujarat, on 13 October 2024 in connection with an FIR alleging offences related to narcotic substances, criminal conspiracy, and financing of illicit drug traffic under the NDPS Act. He had remained in judicial custody for over one year and four months at the time of the ruling.
The accused argued that he was never supplied written grounds of arrest — either at the time of his detention or before being produced for transit remand before a Gujarat court. His counsel cited a series of Supreme Court rulings to contend that communicating grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory and flows directly from Article 22(1).
What the Court Found
Justice Bhambhani held that the arrest memo furnished to Kothia contained only generic 'reasons for arrest' and lacked personalised 'grounds of arrest' specific to him. The court found 'no material to show that any separate written grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest in Gujarat or soon thereafter.'
The bench described the omission as a 'substantive constitutional infraction' rather than a curable procedural defect, holding that the lapse caused 'demonstrable prejudice' by depriving Kothia of a meaningful opportunity to instruct counsel and oppose remand proceedings. 'Deprived of written grounds of arrest in advance, the petitioner was effectively disabled from instructing counsel and meaningfully resisting the prayer for transit remand,' the court observed.
Prosecution's Arguments Rejected
The Delhi Police opposed the bail, contending that at the time of arrest in October 2024, no binding obligation to furnish written grounds immediately existed, since the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mihir Rajesh Shah case was delivered only in November 2025. The prosecution also argued that the accused had suffered no 'demonstrable prejudice' and that remand applications filed in Gujarat and Delhi had sufficiently disclosed the basis of arrest.
The High Court rejected both arguments, holding that the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) was not contingent on any subsequent Supreme Court clarification. The court further ruled that recent apex court decisions 'leave no room for doubt that non-supply of written grounds of arrest within the stipulated window vitiates the arrest and the remand.'
Scope of the Order and Bail Conditions
While granting bail, the court clarified that the illegality in arrest does not invalidate the investigation or trial. The investigating agency remains free to take further steps in accordance with law, including effecting a fresh arrest after complying with constitutional requirements.
The court directed Kothia to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh along with two sureties. Conditions imposed include surrender of passport, full cooperation with the investigation, and restraint from influencing witnesses. The court also noted that his jail conduct had been reported as satisfactory and that no criminal antecedents were cited against him.
Broader Legal Significance
The judgment reinforces a growing line of High Court and Supreme Court rulings that treat the written communication of arrest grounds not as a procedural formality but as a 'substantive, sacrosanct safeguard of personal liberty.' This comes amid heightened judicial scrutiny of arrest procedures across NDPS, PMLA, and UAPA cases, where accused persons often face extended pre-trial detention. The ruling signals that investigating agencies must strictly comply with Article 22(1) at the point of arrest — not merely at the remand stage — or risk judicial intervention on bail.
Point of View
PMLA, UAPA — where the severity of charges has historically been used to justify procedural shortcuts. The Delhi Police's argument that a 2025 Supreme Court ruling cannot retroactively impose obligations on a 2024 arrest was always thin: Article 22(1) predates every agency guideline. What the judgment really exposes is a systemic gap between constitutional text and field practice. If investigating agencies continue to treat written arrest grounds as optional paperwork, courts will keep converting that lapse into bail — and accused persons will walk out not because they are innocent, but because the state failed its own procedural obligations.
NationPress
6 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Delhi High Court grant bail in this NDPS case?
The Delhi High Court granted bail because the Delhi Police Special Cell failed to furnish written grounds of arrest to the accused, Brijesh Kothia, at the time of his detention — a requirement mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The court held this was a substantive constitutional violation, not a minor procedural lapse.
What is the significance of Article 22(1) in an arrest?
Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees every arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of their arrest and the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice. The Delhi High Court ruled that communicating these grounds in writing is not a formality but a 'substantive, sacrosanct safeguard of personal liberty.'
Does the bail order mean the NDPS case against Kothia is dropped?
No. The court explicitly clarified that the illegality in the arrest does not invalidate the ongoing investigation or trial. The investigating agency remains free to take further steps in accordance with law, including making a fresh arrest after complying with constitutional requirements.
What were the bail conditions imposed on Brijesh Kothia?
Kothia was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties. He must also surrender his passport, cooperate fully with the investigation, and refrain from contacting or influencing witnesses in the case.
How does this ruling affect future NDPS arrests by police?
The judgment signals that investigating agencies must supply personalised, written grounds of arrest at the point of detention — not just generic reasons in an arrest memo. Failure to do so risks courts granting bail on constitutional grounds, regardless of the severity of the alleged offence.
