Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru heard a criminal petition filed by two Nigerian citizens challenging their arrest and remand in a narcotics case. The petitioners were accused of offences under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, following registration of Crime No.272 of 2024 on 12-05-2024. They were arrested on 12-05-2024 at 7:00 PM and produced before the magistrate on 13-05-2024 at 7:15 PM, with remand to judicial custody. The petitioners contended that their arrest was illegal as grounds of arrest were not furnished in a language known to them, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and that there was a 15-minute delay in production beyond 24 hours. The State opposed, asserting grounds were furnished and the delay was justified. The Union of India, impleaded as a respondent, highlighted the petitioners' illegal overstay and identity fraud, arguing Article 22 should strictly apply. The court considered the submissions and material on record. It examined the petitioners' immigration history, revealing they had overstayed visas, used multiple identities, and forged documents. The court noted the serious nature of the offences, including recovery of 400 grams of MDMA and 100 grams of cocaine. On the legal issue, the court referenced Article 22(1) and judicial precedents, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, emphasizing the right to be informed of grounds of arrest. However, it found the petitioners failed to prove non-furnishing, as records indicated receipt. The petition was allowed in part. Petitioners directed to set at liberty
Headnote
Criminal law-- Bharatiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023)-- Section 528 -- NDPS Act, 1985-- Section 8(c), 22(c) and 14 -- Petitioners-accsued were citizens of Nigeria-- Offence u/s 8(c), 22(c) and 14 of NDPS Act-- Allegations of selling of contraband Substance MDMA and Cocaine-- Order of arrest and remand passed-- Aggrieved-- Challenged on the ground that not providing grounds of arrest at the time when they were taken into custody, particularly in the language khown to them-- Article 22 of Constitution of India referred-- Article 22(1) of Constitution of India mandates furnishing of grounds of arrest to any accused-- Cases referred-- Mandatory requirement, must be informed the grounds of arrest-- Protection under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India available to non citizen of India also-- Obligation to furnish grounds of arrest remains inescapable in connection of offences under BNS or any other penal statute that authorises custody-- Constitutional guarantee does not evaporate at the border nor does it diminish by reason of nationality except an enemy alien-- Grounds of arrest furnish in the language not known to the petitioners-- S.O.P dated 25-11-2025 by Government of India referred-- Overstay by foreign citizends due to implication in criminal offences-- Deportation of foreign nationals after withdrawal from prosecution-- Observations-- Directions-- Petitioners entitled to be set at liberty on the grounds of arrest not being served upon them in a manner to knowing to law-- Petition partly allowed Para-- 11, 12, 12.6, 13, 15, 17
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the petitioners should be set at liberty on the ground of alleged non-furnishing of grounds of arrest at the time of arrest, particularly in a language known to them, and whether the arrest was illegal due to delay in production before the magistrate beyond 24 hours.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The court dismissed the criminal petition, upholding the arrest and remand orders. The petitioners were not set at liberty.
