Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares NDPS Arrest Illegal for Non-Communication of Grounds of Arrest and Denial of Legal Aid at First Remand
Case Name: Sajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026
Citation: CRWP-4021-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the arrest of the petitioner under the NDPS Act was illegal as the investigating agency failed to comply with the mandatory constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court found that although the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest, those grounds were not communicated in writing to the family member nominated by him. The Court further held that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate without legal representation and without being provided legal aid during the first remand proceedings. These violations rendered both the arrest and the remand proceedings illegal. However, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court clarified that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek fresh custody after complying with the mandatory legal requirements.
Summary: The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking a declaration that the petitioner’s arrest, remand proceedings and continued detention in FIR No. 29 dated 09.02.2026 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act were illegal. The prosecution alleged that acting upon secret information, the police intercepted a Swift car occupied by the petitioner and a co-accused and recovered 307 grams of heroin. Following registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to police custody.
The petitioner challenged the legality of the arrest on the grounds that the reasons for arrest were not communicated in accordance with constitutional requirements, the arrest memo was not properly served, his family members were not supplied the written grounds of arrest, and he was produced before the Magistrate without any legal assistance. The State argued that all statutory and constitutional requirements had been duly complied with and that the petition was merely an attempt to circumvent the stringent bail provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
After examining the arrest memo and the record, the Court held that while the petitioner himself had signed the grounds of arrest, there was no material to establish that the written grounds of arrest had also been supplied to the petitioner’s nominated family member, namely his mother. Relying upon the Supreme Court decisions in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that communication of grounds of arrest is not an empty formality but a constitutional mandate intended to enable the arrested person and his relatives to effectively secure legal remedies. The Court further found that at the time of first remand before the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner was neither represented by counsel nor provided legal aid, thereby violating his constitutional right to legal representation.
Holding that these constitutional safeguards had been breached, the Court declared the arrest and subsequent remand proceedings illegal and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the Court clarified that such illegality would not invalidate the investigation itself and that the investigating agency remained free to seek fresh remand after strictly complying with the constitutional and statutory requirements governing arrest and custody.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The High Court declared the petitioner’s arrest and the subsequent police and judicial remand illegal for violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and directed his immediate release.