Patna High Court
Shivam Kumar @ Shivam SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The arrest was illegal because the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing, and the petitioner is entitled to bail.
Summary
Shivam Kumar was arrested in connection with an NDNDPS case alleging offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner contended that the police never furnished him with the grounds of arrest in writing, invoking Supreme Court judgments (Dr. Rajinder Rajan and Mihir Rajesh Shah) that such a lapse violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal. The State argued that bail could lead to absconding or tampering with evidence, but did not dispute the failure to provide the grounds of arrest. The Court examined the submissions and held that the non‑provision of written grounds made the arrest unlawful, warranting the grant of bail. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to cancellation if he attempts to delay the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to provide the accused with written grounds of arrest violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal.
- Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the arrest is alleged to be illegal.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS
- grounds of arrest
- Article 21
- Article 22
- illegal arrest
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18614 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- Ratanpur District- Begusarai
======================================================
Shivam Kumar @ Shivam Singh S/O Kanhaiya Kumar Resident of Village
Pramila Chowk Ward No 20 Near Roopdeo Clinic, P.S.- Ratanpur, Dist.-
Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Shri Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Shri Amit Kumar, Advocate
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Shri Girish Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-06-2026 1. Heard Shri Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Amit Kumar, learned
Advocate and Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Ratanpur P.S. Case
No.104 of 2025, NDPS Case No.100 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since
18.12.2025 and the informant alleges that while patrolling on
17.12.2025 at 12:30 p.m., he got an information that smack is
kept at the rented house of Rambriksh and landlady is Sudha
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18614 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
2/6
Devi. Accordingly, the rented premises of Rambriksh was raided
and 3.340 Kg. of smack along with other articles were recovered
from the rented room of Rambriksh and thereafter the informant
again received an information that Rambriksh along with
petitioner and Kumar Aryan @ Kartik were present near B.P.
High School for dealing to supply the smack. Accordingly, the
police force reached the place of occurrence, when three
accused persons seeing the police force started fleeing but
petitioner and Kumar Aryan @ Kartik were arrested, who
disclosed that Rambriksh fled and from their possession various
articles as detailed in the FIR were recovered, except narcotics
and they disclosed the name of their associates as Sonu,
Mahakal, Sachin, Raja, Nilesh and Abhash, who indulged in
selling smack and also disclosed that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs
was kept at the house of Aryan @ Kartik after selling smack,
accordingly, the house of Aryan was raided and Rs.20,47,000/-
was seized.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
FIR, it would manifest that admittedly no narcotic was seized
from him and it is alleged that based on disclosure of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18614 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
3/6
petitioner, the house of Aryan @ Kartik was raided from where
Rs.20,47,000/- was recovered which the informant alleges was
the money kept after selling smack as disclosed by the
petitioner. It is next submitted that the case was taken-up on
07.05.2026 when a submission was made on behalf of the
petitioner that though the petitioner was arrested but even after
his arrest, the grounds of arrest were not disclosed to him which
vitiated the arrest and for the said proposition reliance was
placed on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
(Crl.) No(s). 3326 of 2026 Dr. Rajinder Rajan Versus Union
of India & Anr., as such, the State was directed to file a counter
affidavit duly sworn by the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.
It is also submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed and
from perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it
would manifest that the same does not even remotely suggest
that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner after
arresting him. It is further submitted that in the case of Dr.
Rajinder Rajan (supra) a plea was taken based on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State
of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2026(1) SCC 500 that
failure to furnish the grounds of arrest to an accused in writing
amounts to violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18614 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
4/6
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and if the
arrested person has not been informed of the grounds of arrest,
the inevitable consequence would be that the arrest is being
illegal and such person is entitled to be released from custody. It
is next submitted that the allegation in the aforesaid case of Dr.
Rajinder Rajan (supra) was that 2000 Tramadol tablets were
recovered from the Corporate Hospital, Amritsar of Dr. Rajinder
Rajan and based on the said allegation he was arrested but then
grounds of arrest were not furnished to him, hence, the said plea
was raised on his behalf. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court after considering the case in detail and on merits
at para 20 held 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”.
Further, based on the material which was furnished before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court released
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18614 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
5/6
the appellants from the custody on the said ground.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, thus,
submits that in the instant case also though informant alleges
that petitioner was arrested from the place of occurrence after a
chase but then after his arrest the petitioner ought to have been
provided with the grounds of arrest in writing but then the same
was not provided and the said fact is not disputed in the counter
affidavit, hence, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on
bail.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner but then fairly
submits after perusing the averments made in the counter
affidavit that grounds of arrest were not provided to the
petitioner after he was arrested nor the counter affidavit
discloses that petitioner was furnished with grounds of arrest
subsequently even but then submits that if the privilege of
regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond or try to tamper with the evidence on which learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that if petitioner is
released on bail, the petitioner will not abscond rather will
cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18614 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
6/6
and taking into consideration the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as
also the fact that grounds of arrest were not provided to the
petitioner in writing immediately after his arrest, the petitioner,
above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court where the case is pending in connection with
Ratanpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025.
8. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father, namely, Kanhaiya Kumar.
9. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial
Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release on
bail, is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
charge is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner in
both the conditions, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to
cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.