No Grounds of Arrest Communicated: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Woman in 10 kg Heroin Case

Justice Virinder Aggarwal granted regular bail to Amritpal Kaur, arrested in a drone-dropped heroin case, after finding her arrest prima facie violated Article 22(1) and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh granted regular bail on 22 July 2026 to Amritpal Kaur @ Amrit Kaur, a woman accused in a large-scale heroin smuggling case involving contraband allegedly dropped by a drone from Pakistan. Justice Virinder Aggarwal, sitting singly, allowed the first bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 after finding that the arresting agency prima facie failed to communicate the grounds of arrest either to the petitioner or to her nominated relative, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 52(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession, and she had spent over nine months in pre-trial custody at the time of the order.

The FIR and How the Petitioner Was Implicated

FIR No. 143 was registered on 21 September 2025 at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, under Sections 21(c), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, and Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

On the night of 21 September 2025, a police party led by Inspector Gurwinder Singh received secret information that smugglers were expected to receive and transport a heroin consignment dropped by a drone from Pakistan near Village Thetharke. Additional forces were deployed and nakas established. Around 2:00 A.M., four persons — Gurmangal Singh @ Harsh, Jagbir Singh, Dilbagh Singh @ Billa, and Jagdeep Singh @ Joban — were intercepted on two motorcycles. After compliance with NDPS Act search and seizure formalities, recoveries were made: 2.06 kg of heroin from Gurmangal Singh @ Harsh, 4.02 kg from Jagbir Singh, 2.06 kg from Jagdeep Singh @ Joban, and 2.06 kg from Dilbagh Singh @ Billa — totalling 10.20 kg.

Amritpal Kaur was not named in the FIR. She was nominated during investigation on the basis of disclosure statements allegedly made by co-accused Jagdeep Singh @ Joban and Dilbagh Singh @ Billa, and was arrested on 23 September 2025. The only substantive allegation against her was that she had paid ₹40,000 to a co-accused at the instance of her husband, Bachittar Singh, who was residing abroad at the time. Financial transactions were cited by the prosecution to connect her to the offence.

The Legal Issues Before the Court

Two distinct legal questions arose. The first was whether the arrest itself was constitutionally and statutorily valid, given the petitioner's claim that the grounds of arrest were never communicated to her or her relatives. The second was whether the ingredients of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act — which concerns financing of illicit drug trafficking — were prima facie satisfied where the only allegation was payment of ₹40,000 without any recovered contraband.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the case involved recovery of a commercial quantity of 10.020 kg of heroin from co-accused and that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred grant of bail. The State also pointed to the trial being at its initial stage and the alleged disclosure of the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy.

How the Bench Reasoned on Article 22(1)

Justice Aggarwal's analysis began with Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that every arrested person be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest and not be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner. The court treated this as an indefeasible safeguard, not a procedural formality.

The bench drew on a line of Supreme Court authority. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 42896 of 2023, decided on 15 May 2024, 2024 INSC 414, the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing with reasonable promptitude. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, the Supreme Court held that any violation of Article 22(1) at the time of arrest obliges a court to order immediate release, and that the violation by itself is a valid ground for bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions.

The court also relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2026(1) SCC 500, where the Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate to inform an arrestee of the grounds of arrest applies across all offences under all statutes, that grounds must be in writing in a language the arrestee understands, and that in any event the written grounds must be furnished at least two hours before production for remand. Non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

In Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India and Another, SLP(Crl.) No. 3327 of 2026, the Supreme Court reiterated that where an arrest memo records only oral explanation of grounds before formal arrest, the arresting officer remains duty-bound to supply written grounds of arrest two hours prior to production before the Magistrate.

The bench further referred to Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 272, where a three-judge bench held that denial of written grounds of arrest infringes Article 22(1) and deprives the arrestee of the right to consult a lawyer. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2025 INSC 768, the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be sufficiently specific and meaningful, akin to the substance of the charge, so the arrestee can effectively exercise constitutional rights.

This Court's own earlier decision in Ashish Kakkar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2025:PHHC:013798, was cited for the proposition that an arrest memo cannot be equated with grounds of arrest. The bench in the present case also noted Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana, 2013(2) SCC 502, which held that where there is complete non-compliance with mandatory arrest safeguards, the question of actual prejudice becomes irrelevant: the violation constitutes prejudice per se.

Justice Aggarwal distilled these authorities into a set of propositions: grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language understood by the arrestee; they must go to the arrestee as well as to the nominated relative or friend; an arrest memo is legally distinct from grounds of arrest; the Judicial Magistrate before whom an accused is first produced has an independent obligation to verify compliance before authorising detention; and substantial compliance does not satisfy the constitutional mandate.

Application to Amritpal Kaur's Arrest Documents

The arrest memo placed before the court as Annexure P-6 recorded only that the petitioner was informed of the consequences of the alleged offences before being arrested in accordance with prescribed procedure, and that she was apprised of her right to have the fact of her arrest communicated to a family member. She requested that her father-in-law, Gurdeep Singh, be informed, and an intimation memo (Annexure P-7) evidenced that communication.

The court found that neither Annexure P-6 nor Annexure P-7 showed that the specific grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner or to Gurdeep Singh in a language they understood. Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act independently requires communication of grounds at the time of arrest. Both the constitutional and statutory requirements were, on a prima facie reading, unsatisfied.

The court declined to rule conclusively on the Section 27-A question — whether a payment of ₹40,000 at a husband's instance, without any recovery from the petitioner, satisfies the ingredients of financing illicit trafficking — holding that this required appreciation of evidence at trial and could not be adjudicated at the bail stage.

Factors Weighing in the Petitioner's Favour

Beyond the constitutional infirmity in the arrest, the court noted several converging circumstances. No contraband was recovered from Amritpal Kaur's conscious possession. She was a young woman with a minor son aged approximately two years and five months, wholly dependent on her care. She had been in judicial custody for more than nine months and twenty-six days as per the custody certificate produced by the State. The trial was at a nascent stage with no prospect of early conclusion. The Supreme Court's decisions in Priti Kumari v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 21253 of 2025, decided on 28 January 2026, and cognate matters concerning female accused were also taken into account as precedent for distinct consideration being extended to women in bail matters.

Taken together, Justice Aggarwal concluded that continued incarceration would amount to an unwarranted deprivation of personal liberty pending trial and that the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail. The court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions lest it prejudice either side at trial.

Order

The petition was allowed. Amritpal Kaur was ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate, or Duty Magistrate concerned.

The conditions imposed include: no inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts; no tampering with prosecution evidence or attempt to influence prosecution witnesses; no travel outside India without prior permission of the trial court, with passport particulars to be furnished to the investigating officer and trial court; provision of permanent and correspondence addresses with documentary proof, to be verified by the investigating officer within 48 hours of acceptance of bail bonds; furnishing of PAN, Aadhaar number, details of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration of immovable properties; written intimation of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days; attendance on every date fixed before the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted; and commission of no offence of a similar nature during trial. Violation of any condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. All pending miscellaneous applications in the proceedings stood disposed of.