SHILLONG, India, April 23 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 23:

1. Heard Mr. S. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the brief story of the case involving petitioner herein is that on 03.09.2025, a vehicle bearing registration No. ML-05-R-6828 was intercepted by the police at Sawlad Madanriting, Shillong. On search being made, about 30 (thirty) numbers of small black packets containing 200 (two hundred) pieces of orange color tablets suspected to be Yaba (amphetamine) which is a contraband substance was recovered, the total weight is the same being 595.07 grams.

2. The driver and the other occupant of the said vehicle were detained by the police in this connection. The said vehicle is said to belong to Smti. Griti Arengh, who is running a hotel at Lapalang, Shillong (Hotel City Palace Inn), it was his said cousin sister, who has requested the petitioner to enquire as to what happened to the said vehicle, and accordingly, the petitioner went to the place where the said vehicle had been detained. However, on his arrival at the place of occurrence (PO), the police have immediately arrested him without disclosing any reasons for doing so.

3. The learned counsel has also submitted that when the police had arrested the petitioner on 03.09.2025, however, according to the Arrest Memo, he was shown to have been arrested at 10:30 AM on 04.09.2025. Admittedly, a format indicating the grounds of arrest have also been furnished to the petitioner and he has put his signature thereon.

4. In the said format (grounds of arrest) which is practically a checklist, only two grounds of arrest have been marked as against the petitioner, the first being " you have committed a cognizable offence in the presence of the police officer" and secondly, that "you are suspected of being involved in a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term that may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without a fine".

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel that, apart from the fact that the petitioner is nowhere connected to the offence alleged to have been committed, the mode and manner and the contents of the format of intimation of the grounds of arrest, is totally illegal and is a complete violation of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, read with Section 52 (1) of the NDPS Act.

6. The learned counsel has further submitted that, even, if it is said that the petitioner has committed a cognizable offence for which punishment is less than seven years or to the extent of seven years, then the mandatory requirement of law with regard to issuance of prior notice as prescribed and provided under Section 35 (3) BNSS has not been complied with.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63KvzafCepxIxz8xPdOub2suQu3j3pQX2i4puksVt78Nh9F&caseno=BA/9/2026&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010003072026&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.