Petitioner arrested under the NDPS Act after recovery of Tramadol and Alprazolam sought habeas corpus alleging detention beyond 24 hours and non-communication of grounds of arrest. The Court found due procedure followed, remand judicially authorised, bail already rejected, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~17
versus
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R
% 16.03.2026
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:46:11
from the co-accused-Mr. Mohan Lal, who was apprehended on 14th October, 2025. During investigation, Mr. Mohan Lal in his disclosure statement dated 16th October, 2025, stated that he used to source the said Tramadol capsules and Alprazolam tablets from the medical shop of the petitioner namely Rizvi Medicos, D-5 Ground Floor, Main Road, Shastri Park, New Delhi. Based on such disclosure, the officers of the respondent/NCB, on 16th October, 2025, went to the petitioner’s shop. It is submitted that the petitioner was given a Notice under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“ NDPS Act ”] and was taken to NCB office for interrogation. The petitioner voluntarily gave his partial statement on 16th October, 2025 and complete statement on 17th October, 2025. It is submitted that based on the petitioner’s disclosure, 1-2 packets of Tramadol capsules weighing 321 grams were recovered from his shop at his instance. Consequent upon the recovery and having “reasons to believe” that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 8/22/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, he was arrested on 17th October, 2025 at 4 PM. He was subsequently produced before the learned Magistrate on the same day, that is, on 17th October, 2025 at about 9:39 PM at the residence of the learned Duty Magistrate. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was illegally detained by the respondent/NCB authorities from the evening of 16th October, 2025 and that such detention continued till his production before the learned Magistrate on 17th October, 2025 at around 9:39 PM. It is argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the Constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2) requiring
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:46:11
production before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest stands violated as his custody exceeds the mandated 24 hours period. It is further submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest, thereby making his arrest and continued custody as ‘illegal’.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:46:11
Magistrate, at around 9:39 PM, in a timely manner on the same day of his arrest. It is prayed that the present petition be dismissed, being devoid of merit.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:46:11
October, 2025, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The remand of the petitioner is a judicial function and therefore challenge to such order is not to be entertained in a Habeas Corpus petition unless it is shown that the remand order was absolutely illegal or the same was afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, which is not so in the present case.
“22. The principal ground urged by the applicant is alleged violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. However, the date of production before the Court is itself disputed in the application. When confronted with the inconsistency between the pleaded date and the prosecution record, the applicant declined to correct or clarify the factual foundation of his plea. In absence of a clear and established factual basis demonstrating violation of the 24-hour mandate, the arguments regarding violation of constitutional rights of the accused cannot be accepted at this stage.
23. Even otherwise, the record reflects that remand was sought and judicially authorized. It is settled law that once custody has been authorized by a competent court, the initial irregularity, if any does not automatically entitle the accused to release unless there is gross violation of the rights of the accused. In the present case, considering the discrepancy in the alleged date of first production before the Court remaining unexplained by the Ld. Counsel, prima facie, no case of such violation is made out.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:46:11
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
MARCH 16, 2026/ AK / RM/pb
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/03/2026 at 13:46:11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's arrest and custody violated Article 22(2) by exceeding 24 hours before production before a Magistrate.
Whether failure to communicate grounds of arrest rendered the arrest and remand illegal.
Whether habeas corpus lies to challenge the remand order passed by a competent Magistrate.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Arshad Hussain
Narcotics Control Bureau
Navin Chawla
Ravinder Dudeja
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
