Rinki Digal vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

This is a petition for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.217 of 2026 on the file of the respondent, the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Perur, Coimbatore District, registered for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the Act.

The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 24.06.2026, acting on information, a police party intercepted three persons, all from Odisha, near the two-wheeler parking compound of the Pollachi Railway Station. About 20.900 kilograms of ganja is said to have been recovered from the bags carried by the first accused, about 750 grams from the bag carried by the second accused, and about 750 grams from a white bag carried by the petitioner, each under a separate seizure mahazar. The counter affidavit puts the total at 22.400 kilograms and describes it as a commercial quantity in joint possession. The report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Coimbatore, dated 17.07.2026, is said to confirm that the samples are ganja. The investigation is not yet complete.

The petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a native of Kandhamal District in Odisha whose mother tongue is Odia, and that she knows neither Tamil nor English. The first information report itself records that, as the accused did not know Tamil, what was said to them was translated into Hindi through one Johnny of Pollachi. No grounds of arrest were furnished to her in writing, in any language. The arrest is therefore in breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, as explained in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288. He further submits that only about 750 grams, less than the small quantity of one kilogram fixed for ganja, is attributed to the petitioner, and that the recoveries from the three accused cannot be added together to bring her within Section 37 of the Act without material of conspiracy. He points out that the petitioner is pregnant, a fact noticed in the order of the Special Court, and that no independent witness was associated with the search.

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposes the petition on the counter affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Coimbatore District, who is the investigating officer. He submits that although the quantity seized from the petitioner is about 750 grams, the three accused were together found with 22.400 kilograms, a commercial quantity in joint possession. On the grounds of arrest, paragraph B of the counter affidavit states that the arrest was intimated to the petitioner's mother and that “the particulars regarding the grounds for arrest were explained to the petitioner in Hindi through a resident of Pollachi”, and that there was therefore no violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution “and Sec.41 of BNSS”. It is also contended that the plea was not raised before the Special Court, that the absence of independent witnesses is a matter for the trial, and that the petitioner, being a native of Odisha, is likely to abscond.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me.

The contention on the grounds of arrest is taken first, because it goes to the legality of the custody itself.

The petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2026, well after 06.11.2025, from which date the procedure laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1288, governs arrests. The Supreme Court held:

In Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1022, the Supreme Court held that it is Mihir Rajesh Shah which lays down the correct and binding law, and summed up the position in these words: “The grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language which is understood by the accused. … When there is violation of the Constitution, question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise.” The requirement of language is not new. In Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911, a Constitution Bench held, in the context of Article 22(5), that to a person not conversant with the language of the grounds, “service of the Order and the grounds of detention in English, with their oral translation or explanation by the police officer serving them does not fulfil the requirements of the law”, and that he “must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person.” Mihir Rajesh Shah (cited supra) applied that reasoning to Article 22(1).

The respondent does not claim that the grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioner in writing, either at the time of her arrest or at any time before she was produced for remand. No written grounds, and no arrest memo, have been placed before me. What the counter affidavit says is that the grounds were explained to her orally, in Hindi, through a resident of Pollachi. The first information report says the same thing: since the accused did not know Tamil, it was translated into Hindi through one Johnny of Pollachi, who knew Tamil and Hindi. The petitioner comes from Kandhamal District in Odisha. The respondent does not say that she knows Hindi, much less that she can read it. What is described is an oral explanation, given through a private individual, in a language that is not the petitioner's own and is not shown to be one she understands. That is what Harikisan (cited supra) held to be insufficient more than sixty years ago, and it falls well short of what Mihir Rajesh Shah (cited supra) now requires. Even if the petitioner understood Hindi, nothing was given to her in writing, then or within two hours before her remand.

There is a further feature of the record. On the respondent's own account, the petitioner was arrested at 22.45 hours on 24.06.2026, and her bag was searched and the 750 grams seized from it at 01.45 hours on 25.06.2026. Whatever was explained to her at the time of her arrest could not have included the recovery that is now the only material attributed to her personally. I note this as the record stands, and say nothing on its effect at the trial.

The reference in the counter affidavit to Section 41 of the BNSS is misplaced; that provision deals with arrest by a Magistrate. The obligation to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is in Section 47 of the BNSS and Section 52(1) of the Act. The intimation of the arrest to the petitioner's mother discharges a different obligation, under Section 48 of the BNSS. It is not communication of the grounds to the petitioner.

It follows that the arrest of the petitioner and her remand to judicial custody are vitiated by the breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The consequence is stated in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (cited supra): “Any breach or non-compliance would entail immediate release of the arrested person because such arrest is unconstitutional.” The Supreme Court there noticed, with approval, that once the Court dealing with a bail application finds that the rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 have been violated in arresting him, bail cannot be denied for want of satisfaction of the twin conditions of a special statute. Section 37 of the Act stands on the same footing. I make this order on that ground alone. I have not considered whether the recoveries from the three accused may be read together, and I have not reached the twin conditions under Section 37. Nor have I found it necessary to rest anything on the petitioner's pregnancy, which the respondent does not dispute.

If the respondent considers the custody of the petitioner necessary, it may proceed only in the manner laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (cited supra), read with paragraphs 24 to 25.1 of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (cited supra), that is, by an application to the jurisdictional Court made after the grounds of arrest have been furnished to the petitioner in writing in a language she understands, setting out the reasons and the necessity for custody and the explanation for the earlier non-supply, and bearing the endorsement of the immediate superior authority. Any such application shall be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by this order.

Legal position is stated as follows: Where the person arrested does not know the language of the State, an oral explanation of the grounds of arrest in a third language, given through a private individual and not followed by written grounds in a language the person understands, is not compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The arrest and the remand are vitiated, and the bar in Section 37 of the Act does not stand in the way of release.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Pollachi, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix her photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure her identity;

[b] Before her release, the petitioner shall file before the Special Court an affidavit stating the address at which she will reside while on bail, with proof of that address. She shall not change that address without informing the Special Court and the respondent in writing.

[c] The petitioner shall appear before the respondent whenever required for the purpose of investigation, on not less than seven days' notice in writing sent to that address, and before the Special Court on every date of hearing after the final report is taken on file, unless her appearance is dispensed with by that Court.

[d] The petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Special Court.

[e] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 A.M. until further orders;

[f] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[g] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial, and shall not maintain any contact with the witnesses to the occurrence, the officials dealing with the case, or any other person who might be connected to the occurrence;

[h] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.