Dismissed¶62

Union of India v. R Pranay Jain

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2026CRL.P/1481/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S Vishwajith Shetty, J., 06.07.2026) dismisses NCB's CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026 under S.483(3) BNSS, 2023 seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to R. Pranay Jain (NCB.F.No.48/1/19/2024/BZU; Ss.8(C), 22(C), 23(C), 27, 28, 29 NDPS Act) because grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest were not served in writing; trial Court's bail order upheld; Pankaj Bansal (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar (2025) 5 SCC 799 relied on.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution did not serve the grounds of arrest or the reasons for arrest on the respondent/accused in writing; when the law requires service of the grounds of arrest and reason for arrest in writing, the submission that the accused had stated he was aware of the grounds of arrest cannot be countenanced. ¶52

Union of India Vs R Pranay Jain — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26.09.2025 of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.7462/2025 granting regular bail to the respondent should be set aside and the bail cancelled. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court granting regular bail to the respondent on the ground that he was not served the grounds of arrest and the reasons for his arrest in the manner known to law.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

¶52

Key takeaways

Adopting the position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decisions, failure to serve the grounds of arrest on an arrestee, which is mandatory, would entitle the arrestee to bail.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.), by oral order dated 06.07.2026 in CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026, dismissed a petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 filed by the Union of India (Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit) seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.7462/2025 granting regular bail to R. Pranay Jain, an accused in NCB.F.No.48/1/19/2024/BZU registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 23(C), 27, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and to cancel the bail. The trial Court had granted bail solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest were not served on the accused. Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, the High Court held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee in writing and that failure to serve the mandatory grounds of arrest entitles the arrestee to bail. Finding on a perusal of the material that the prosecution had not served the grounds of arrest or reasons for arrest on the respondent/accused in writing, the Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial Court's order and dismissed the criminal petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33781 CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1481 OF 2026 (439(2)(Cr.PC) / 483(3)(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

UNION OF INDIA NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, H.NO.7/1 AND 2, PRIYANKA VILLAS, KATTIGENAHALLI, BEGALUR MAIN ROAD, A.F. STATION YALAHANKA POST, BENGALURU-560 063. REP. BY ROSHAN SHAH

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

R. PRANAY JAIN, S/O. M RAJENDRA JAIN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, NETHAJI ROAD, NEAR ASHOKA TALKIES, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) AT BENGALURU, IN CRL. MISC. NO.7462/2025 GRANTING BAIL TO THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 28 AND 29 OF THE NDPS ACT

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33781 CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND CONSEQUENTLY CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT AND COMMIT HIM TO JUDICAL CUSTODY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 is

¶23

filed by Union of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Court of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Crl.Misc.No.7462/2025, wherein regular bail has been granted to the respondent herein in NCB.F.No.48/1/19/2024/BZU registered by Sub Inspector of Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 23(C), 27, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS' Act).

¶24

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33781 CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Respondent who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in NCB.F.No.48/1/19/2024/BZU on 12.12.2024 had filed Crl.Misc.No.7462/2025 before the trial Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail. The said bail application was allowed by the learned trial judge vide the order impugned on the ground that the grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest were not served on the respondent/accused. Assailing the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that the grounds of arrest as well as the reasons for arrest has been made known to the respondent in the manner known to law. Respondent has signed in his arrest memo stating that he was explained the grounds for his arrest and even before the trial Court when he was produced, he had stated that he was aware of the reasons for his arrest. He submits that the trial Court without going to the merits of the case, has granted regular bail to an accused who is

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33781 CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

involved in a case where commercial quantity of contraband article has been seized from him. He accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that there is absolutely no material available on record to show that the grounds of arrest and the reasons for arrest was served on the respondent/accused in the manner known to law. He submits that the grounds of arrest as well as the reasons for arrest has to be communicated to the arrestee in writing which is the requirement of law. Since the investigation officer had failed to serve the grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest in writing to the respondent/accused, the trial Court is justified in granting regular bail to him. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others reported

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33781 CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

in (2024) 7 SCC 576 has held that the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest has to be communicated to the person arrested and is required to be informed in the language which he understands. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. In the said case it was held that the grounds of arrest should be communicated in writing to the person arrested. The said view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal was reiterated in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and in paragraph No.29 of the said order it is observed as follows:

¶37

" 29. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the ‘grounds’ of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33781 CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned."

¶41

In the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of

¶42

Haryana & Anr. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 in paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the view taken by in the case of Pankaj Bansal

¶43

and Prabir Purkayastha has observed as follows:

¶44

"19. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:33781 CRL.P No. 1481 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second."

¶49

In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble

¶50

Supreme Court has held that failure to serve the grounds of arrest as aforesaid on an arrestee which is mandatory would entitle him for bail.

¶51

A perusal of the material that is made

¶52

available to this Court would go to show that the prosecution has not served the grounds of arrest or reasons for arrest on the respondent/accused in writing. When the law requires that the grounds of arrest and the reason for arrest has to be served on the arrestee in writing, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that accused has stated that he was aware of the grounds of arrest cannot be countenanced.

¶53