Bail Denied Despite Arrest Lapse: P&H High Court Holds Non-Supply of Written Grounds Alone Not Enough in NDPS Cases

Case Name: Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 06 April 2026

Citation: CRM-M-71999-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that while communication of grounds of arrest is a constitutional safeguard, mere non-supply of written grounds—especially prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah—does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in serious NDPS offences, unless prejudice is demonstrated and statutory conditions under Section 37 are satisfied.

Summary: The petitioner, Director of ADDOM Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., sought regular bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity (2,34,390 tablets) of psychotropic substances. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in supplying drugs to fictitious firms, which were part of a coordinated network diverting contraband into Punjab.

The defence argued that the petitioner had merely supplied medicines through legitimate channels and could not be held responsible for subsequent diversion. A key legal contention raised was that the arrest was vitiated as written grounds of arrest were not furnished, relying upon recent Supreme Court jurisprudence mandating such communication.

The Court undertook a detailed examination of both factual and legal aspects. On merits, it found that the petitioner continued supplying medicines to a firm despite being alerted by his own accountant that the entity was bogus. The unusual supply chain, lack of commercial rationale, and structured use of fictitious entities pointed towards a deliberate and coordinated illegal operation.

On the legal issue of grounds of arrest, the Court acknowledged that written grounds were not furnished. However, it drew a distinction between:

• complete non-communication of grounds, and
• absence of written format despite awareness of reasons.

Relying on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that the requirement of furnishing written grounds operates prospectively and was not applicable to arrests made prior to that judgment. It further emphasized that the constitutional mandate is to ensure effective communication of grounds, not mere ritualistic compliance.

The Court also applied the “prejudice test,” observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the absence of written grounds impaired his ability to defend himself. Since he was aware of the allegations and actively participated in the investigation, no violation warranting bail was made out.

Importantly, the Court reiterated the stringent bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, holding that bail can only be granted when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty—a threshold higher than prima facie satisfaction. In the present case, the material on record indicated conscious involvement, thereby failing this test.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that non-supply of written grounds of arrest, in the facts of the case, did not vitiate the arrest or justify bail. Given the gravity of allegations, commercial quantity involved, and failure to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act, the petitioner was not entitled to relief.