It is definitely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord at the right time, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Dr Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India & Anr in Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3326 of 2026) With Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3327 of 2026) that was pronounced just recently on April 1, 2026 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction while granting bail to two medical professionals who were accused in a narcotics case has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that their arrest was rendered illegal as the grounds of arrest were not supplied to them in writing prior to their production before the Magistrate which is mandatory also. To put it differently, the Apex Court has made it indubitably clear in this leading judgment that written grounds of arrest have to be provided mandatorily before remand and failure to do so would render the arrest illegal. So ostensibly the same must be done necessarily to ensure that the arrest is not rendered illegal. It must be also noted that the Apex Court had applied the mandate in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra where a Bench of former CJI Hon’ble Mr BR Gavai and Hon’ble Mr Justice AG Masih had held that failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, would vitiate both the arrest and any subsequent remand.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that, “The appellants herein are both medical professionals concerned with the operation of Corporate Hospital at Batala Road, Amritsar.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “An order for Tramadol tablets was placed with the manufacturer, M/s. Ballista Pharmaceuticals, under a written letter dated 19th April, 2025 issued under the signatures of the appellant, Dr. Jatinder Malhotra, who was managing the affairs of the Corporate Medicos (the pharmacy unit operating within the Corporate Hospital, Amritsar).”
While elaborating on the facts of the case, the Bench observes in para 5 that, “It is the case of the appellants that, owing to a supply-side error, M/s. Ballista Pharmaceuticals inadvertently shipped a consignment of 2000 Tramadol tablets to the hospital instead of the intended quantity of 200 tablets for which the order was placed. The consignment was received on 21st April, 2025, and, upon noticing the excess quantity, the same was neither opened nor put to use. The entire consignment continued to remain in a sealed box.”
Further, the Bench discloses in para 6 that, “The appellants further claim that a letter dated 27th April, 2025 was issued by the hospital to M/s. Ballista Pharmaceuticals requesting for return of the excess 1800 tablets. As per the appellants, the Tramadol tablets had been ordered for providing treatment to the patients admitted in the hospital. However, before the excess tablets could be returned, the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Amritsar Zonal Unit conducted search and seizure on 1st May, 2025 in the premises of M/s. Ballista Pharmaceuticals and recovered 31,900 tablets of Tramadol.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 7 that, “Pursuant to the said recovery, a crime case bearing NCB Crime No.14/2025 dated 1st May, 2025 was registered against one Amit Bhandari, the proprietor of M/s. Ballista Pharmaceuticals. As a follow up, the NCB conducted a raid at the Corporate Medicos operating inside the Corporate Hospital, Amritsar and recovered the said consignment of 2000 Tramadol tablets in a sealed condition.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “The appellant-Dr. Rajinder Rajan, who is a senior orthopaedic surgeon and owner of the hospital, and the appellant-Dr. Jatinder Malhotra being the proprietor of the pharmacy (Corporate Medicos) were initially summoned under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter being referred to as “NDPS Act, 1985”.) and after recording their statements, both were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 3rd May, 2025.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 9 that, “The appellants applied for bail before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Hereinafter being referred to as “High Court”.). Their applications for regular bail stand rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by two separate orders dated 13th November, 2025 passed in CRM-M-33675-2025 and CRM-M-33573-2025.”
Do further note, the Bench then also notes in para 11 that, “The bail applications of the appellants having been rejected by the High Court, the appellants are before us by way of these appeals with special leave.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 12 that, “Shri S. Nagamuthu and Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, placed reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another (2026) 1 SCC 500., and urged that failure to furnish the ‘grounds of arrest’ to an accused in writing amounts to violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that where the arrested person has not been informed of the grounds of arrest, the inevitable consequence would be that the arrest is illegal and such person is entitled to be released from custody.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 13 noting that, “In particular, learned senior counsel relied upon the following conclusions recorded in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra):-
“66. In conclusion, it is held that:
66.1. 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);
66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
66.3. 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 any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate.
66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.””
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 19 that, “We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 20 that, “It is no longer res integra that supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) conclusively holds that any deviation from the above principle would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith.”
Notably, the Bench then notes in para 21 that, “Shri Kaushik tried to convince the Court that the grounds of arrest were orally explained to the 8 accused at the time of preparation of the arrest memo. We have perused the arrest memo placed on record by Shri Kaushik and extract the same for the sake of ready reference:-
“Arrest Memo
Consequent upon the recovery/seizure of 2000 Tablets of Tramadol on 02/05/2025 from Corporate Chemist inside Corporate Hospital, Batola Road, Amritsar -14300/ and on the basis of voluntarily statement dated 02/05/2025 of Rajinder Rajan S/O Janak Raj R/o D-84,Ranjit Avenue , Amritsar ,Punjab recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 having reasons to believe that Rajinder Rajan has violated section 8 and 22 of NDPS act and committed offence punishable u/s 8 and 22 of NDPS Act; accordingly, I place Rajinder Rajan under arrest on 02/05/2025 at 2300 hrs. I have explained the ground of arrest to him/her before arrest.” (SD)”.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 22 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “On going through the arrest memo, we find that it has been prepared in a template format and contains a statement to the effect that the arresting officer had explained the grounds of arrest to the accused before the arrest. Thus, the arrest memo, by itself, reflects that the grounds of arrest had been orally explained to the accused before the process of formal arrest was undertaken. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to have supplied the memo of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused two hours prior to producing them before the Magistrate as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which apparently has not been followed in this case.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 23 that, “In the wake of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the appellants are entitled to be released from custody by giving them the benefit of the ratio laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the appellants shall be released on bail forthwith, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court and such other conditions as it may deem fit to impose.”
What’s more, the Bench then directs and holds aptly in para 24 that, “The appeals are allowed accordingly.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 25 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Sanjeev Sirohi