Arrest Memo Cannot Replace Grounds of Arrest

The Madras High Court dismissed six consolidated bail petitions arising out of NDPS prosecutions, after rejecting the common plea that the petitioners had not been furnished the grounds of arrest. The order was passed by Justice C. Kumarappan on 17 March 2026 in Crl.O.P. Nos. 3329, 4031, 4305, 4349, 2716 and 3430 of 2026.

The petitioners relied on Supreme Court decisions including Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, Kasiredy Upender Reddy and Ahmed Mansoor to contend that non-communication of grounds of arrest vitiated their custody. The court examined the individual bail histories and noted that the plea was not raised at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter. In most matters, it was also not taken in earlier bail applications.

The court recorded that the petitioners had been in custody for periods ranging from about one year to four years before raising this objection. It treated that conduct as relevant to the limited question before it, namely whether the belated plea could support bail.

On the legal issue, the court held that “grounds of arrest” and “arrest memo” are distinct and cannot be equated. It accepted that the petitioners had been served only with arrest memos, but held that the constitutional requirement to furnish grounds of arrest in these NDPS matters, which were described as being in the nature of flagrante delicto, was made applicable only prospectively from 06.11.2025.

The court therefore declined to extend that requirement to these cases. It also found no material to satisfy the rigour of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. On that basis, all six criminal original petitions were dismissed.

For NDPS bail matters, the order turns on two points: the distinction between an arrest memo and grounds of arrest, and the court’s view that the plea must be raised promptly, not after years of custody.

Practical takeaway: In NDPS bail litigation, a belated Article 22 challenge may fail if the court treats the arrest-memo objection as distinct from the grounds-of-arrest requirement.