"Failure to provide written grounds renders arrest illegal": Supreme Court grants bail to two doctors

New Delhi: Holding that failure to provide written grounds of arrest violates constitutional rights and renders the arrests illegal, the Supreme Court of India has granted bail to two doctors from a corporate hospital in Amritsar who were arrested in connection with a narcotics case involving the procurement of a large quantity of Tramadol tablets.

While granting relief to the doctors, the Division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that it is the duty of the arresting officer to provide the grounds of arrest in writing at least two hours before producing the accused before the Magistrate, as mandated in its Mihir Rajesh Shah case ruling. However, this requirement was not followed in this case.

The Court reiterated that failure to comply with this mandate renders the arrest illegal and entitles the accused to immediate release.

Emphasising that the rules were not followed before arresting the doctors, the Bench held,

"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 Apex Court was hearing the appellants in this case, who are two medical professionals associated with the management of a corporate hospital located on Batala Road, Amritsar.

On April 19, 2025, an order for Tramadol tablets was placed with the manufacturer, M/s Ballista Pharmaceuticals, through a written request signed by Dr ***, who was handling the operations of Corporate Medicos, the pharmacy unit within the hospital.

According to the appellants, due to an error on the supplier’s side, the company mistakenly sent 2000 tablets instead of the 200 tablets that were actually ordered. The consignment was received on April 21, 2025. Upon noticing the excess quantity, the appellants claim that the package was neither opened nor used and remained sealed.

They further stated that on April 27, 2025, the hospital wrote to the supplier requesting the return of the extra 1800 tablets. The tablets had originally been ordered for treating admitted patients. However, before the excess stock could be returned, officials from the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Amritsar Zonal Unit, conducted a search at the premises of M/s Ballista Pharmaceuticals on May 1, 2025, and recovered 31,900 Tramadol tablets.

Following this, a case was registered against the proprietor of M/s Ballista Pharmaceuticals. As part of the investigation, the NCB also raided Corporate Medicos located within the hospital and seized the 2000 tablets, which were still in a sealed condition.

Subsequently, both the appealants, a senior orthopaedic surgeon who is the owner of the hospital, and the proprietor of the pharmacy, were summoned under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After recording their statements, both were arrested on May 3, 2025, and sent to judicial custody.

The appellants later approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking regular bail. However, their bail applications were rejected by a Single Judge through two separate orders dated November 13, 2025.

In their bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants argued that they were not provided with the "grounds of arrest" before being taken into custody in this case.

After their bail pleas were rejected by the High Court, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by filing appeals through special leave.

Senior advocates Shri S. Nagamuthu and Shri P.V. Dinesh, appearing for the appellants, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another (2026) and argued that not providing the grounds of arrest in writing violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. They further submitted that if an arrested person is not informed of the grounds of arrest, the arrest itself becomes illegal, and the person must be released from custody.

They vehemently and fervently contended that "mere mentioning of the case details in the arrest memo would not be a substitute for the mandatory requirement of furnishing the accused with the grounds of arrest."

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General Shri Anil Kaushik, representing the respondents, opposed these arguments. He argued that the grounds of arrest were clearly mentioned in the arrest memo itself, and therefore, the legal requirements laid down in the Mihir Rajesh Shah case were properly followed.

He further submitted that the compliance report filed under Section 57 of the NDPS Act also mentions that the grounds of arrest were explained to the accused.

Additionally, the respondents argued that the appellants had knowingly obtained a large quantity of Tramadol tablets from the manufacturer, even though their hospital’s license did not permit dealing with Tramadol.

Court's Observation

After hearing both sides and going through the materials, the Apex Court held, "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."

While referring to its ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah, the court said that it clearly ruled that any failure to follow the requirement of providing the grounds of arrest in writing would render the arrest illegal, and the accused would be entitled to immediate release.

In the present case, the Court noted that the arrest memo was prepared in a standard template format and included a statement that the grounds of arrest had been explained to the accused before the arrest. This indicates that the grounds were communicated only orally prior to the formal arrest.

"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," the bench observed.

In view of these findings, the Court held that the appellants are entitled to be released from custody by applying the principles laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah. Accordingly, the Court directed that the appellants be released on bail immediately.

To view the court order, click on the link below:

Also read- Stem cell therapy: NMC issues advisory for medical colleges to comply with Supreme Court directions