ORDER : SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.159/2025 of Ashoknagar Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would contend that, the search has been conducted after sunset and before sunrise and grounds of belief are not recorded as contained in proviso to Section 42 of NDPS Act. The authorization of the superior Officer as required under sub- Section (2) of Section 41 of NDPS Act has not been obtained. The contents are weighed including the ziplock. The currency notes were not found with the petitioner from sale of Contraband. The petitioner has been taken into custody at 11:35 p.m. and he has not been informed the grounds of arrest as required under Section 52 of NDPS Act. In the remand application, the arrest of the petitioner has been shown at 4.00 a.m. Sri. Manjappa, Police Inspector who conducted the raid has not informed the grounds of arrest. The inventory has not been conducted in the presence of the petitioner/accused. The qualitative and quantitative test reports have not been obtained within time as contained in Rule 14 of NDPS (Seizure Storage Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. The two wheeler does not belong to the petitioner. The purchasers have not been identified. There are no previous cases against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since last five (5) months. As the quantitative test report has not been obtained, at this stage, it cannot be said that, quantity seized is commercial quantity to attract rigour of sub-Section 1(b) of Section 37 of NDPS Act. 4. On the above grounds, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) SARIJA BAND VS. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR reported in 2004 SUPREME (SC) 257 ii) AHMED MANSOOR VS. STATE OF T.N. by Supreme Court decision In CRL.A.4505/2025 iii) VIHAAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2025)5 SCC 799 iv) DHANANJAYA BELCHADA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA unreported decision of KARNATAKA HIGH COURT in CRL.A NO.246/2016 v) PRABIR PURKAYASTHA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) reported in 2024 SUPREME (SC) 463 vi) BHARATH CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF T.N. by Supreme Court decision In CRL.A.4505/2025 iii) VIHAAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2025)5 SCC 799 iv) DHANANJAYA BELCHADA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA unreported decision of KARNATAKA HIGH COURT in CRL.A NO.246/2016 v) PRABIR PURKAYASTHA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) reported in 2024 SUPREME (SC) 463 vi) BHARATH CHAUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2021)20 SCC 50 vii) NAGARAJ J @ WILSON GARDEN NAGA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 4319 viii) BHARAT AAMBALE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARDH reported in (2025) 8 SCC 452 ix) RUSHAB SHARMIK MASTRULAL VS. STATE reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10526 x) STATE OF W.B. VS. BABU CHAKRABORTHY reported in (2004) 12 SCC 201 xi) JIRIMIYA MAJHI VS. STATE BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA in CRL.P. NO.1380/2024. On the above grounds, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent would contend that, the FSL report of contraband seized has been obtained and it is positive for MDMA and the quantity seized is a commercial quantity. The quantity seized is worth Rs.4,00,000/-. The investigation is in progress, the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for ten (10) years and it may extend to twenty (20) years. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of him hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses and committing similar offence. With these, he prayed to reject the petition. 6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent, the Court has perused FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. One of the grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that, grounds of arrest are not communicated to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AHMED MANSOOR (supra) has observed as under: "In such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the present appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the appellants has not been complied with. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. However, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court and consequently setting aside the order of arrest and remand, we would only say that liberty is granted to the respondents to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is made out." 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VIHAAN KUMAR (supra) has observed as under: "19. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second." 9. In the case of DHANANJAYA BELCHADA (supra), this Court while dealing with the appeal against conviction in the case of for offences under Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act, 1959 has observed as under: "16. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second." 9. In the case of DHANANJAYA BELCHADA (supra), this Court while dealing with the appeal against conviction in the case of for offences under Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act, 1959 has observed as under: "16. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that even though the Panchas – PWs.2 and 3 have not supported regarding seizure of MOs.1 to 4 under Exs.P1 and P3, but the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 being the police officers would establish the seizure mahazars – Exs.P1 and P3. The very act that PW1 arresting this appellant – accused No.1 without any grounds, continued investigation, seized two live bullets from his possession under mahazar, recorded his confessional statement, seized MOs.2 to 4 under Ex.P3 and thereafter, himself prepared a complaint and himself registered it and thereafter continued further investigation and arrested accused No.2 and seized MO.5, two live cartridges from his house at his instance as per Ex.P7. This itself shows that PW1 is an interested person in registering the case against this appellant – accused No.1. PW4 being the police constable is sub-ordinate to PW1. Even the arrest mahazar has not been prepared at the time of arrest of the appellant – accused No.1 and the grounds of arrest have not been stated by him and there were no grounds at all to arrest him at that point of time and there is no evidence regarding intimation of arrest of the appellant – accused No.1 to his family members. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 with regard to seizure of MO.1 under Ex.P1 – mahazar and seizure of MOs.2 to 4 under mahazar – Ex.P3 at the instance of this appellant – accused No.1 is not reliable in the absence of independent witnesses. PWs.2 and 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even PW8 – landlord of the house of accused No.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to he opening the key of the house of accused No.2 and the appellant – accused No.1 showing the arms kept in the house and seizure under Ex.P3. PWs.2 and 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even PW8 – landlord of the house of accused No.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to he opening the key of the house of accused No.2 and the appellant – accused No.1 showing the arms kept in the house and seizure under Ex.P3. Even the statement of PW2 as per Ex.P11, PW3 as per Ex.P12 and PW7 as per Ex.P13 and PW8 as per Ex.P14 are not confronted to Investigating Officer (PW1) who recorded the statements. The said statements of PWs.2, 3, 7 and 8 remained not proved." 10. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MIHIR RAJESH SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 INSC 1288 decided on 06.11.2025 has observed as under: "52. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the magistrate. 56. In conclusion, it is held that: i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free. 11. The raid has been conducted by Sri. Manjappa C.A., Police Inspector, Anti Narcotics Wing, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru. He found the petitioner possessing the contraband kept in his Access two wheeler bearing No.KA 03 JA 0134. He seized the contraband under Mahazar and took the petitioner into custody and produced the seized contraband and the petitioner along with his report before the Station House Officer, Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru at 4:00 a.m. on 14.06.2025 and a case has been registered in Crime No.159/2025 for the aforesaid offences. The Station House Officer who registered a case has arrested the petitioner at 4:00 a.m. and produced the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Magistrate at 4:00 p.m. In the order sheet, the Jurisdictional Magistrate recorded the petitioner being produced on 14.06.2025 at 4:00 p.m. with remand application and producing the Supreme Court eleven (11) guidelines form, grounds for arrest, check list, arrest intimation and medical report. 12. Considering the above aspect, it is clear that, at the time of production of the petitioner to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, grounds of arrest have been intimated to the petitioner. Even along with the petition, the intimation, grounds of arrest of the petitioner/accused under Section 47(1) of BNSS has been produced and it contains the signature and LTM of the petitioner/accused. In the aforesaid document, there is mention of grounds of arrest of the petitioner for having conscious possession of contraband/MDMA weighing 32.06 grams and its seizure. 13. In the case of MIHIR RAJESH SHAH (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, the arresting Officer unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds should be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case atleast two hours prior to the production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate. 14. Considering the above aspects, the grounds of arrest are communicated to the petitioner in writing prior to the petitioner producing before the Magistrate seeking his remand. 15. The said grounds should be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case atleast two hours prior to the production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate. 14. Considering the above aspects, the grounds of arrest are communicated to the petitioner in writing prior to the petitioner producing before the Magistrate seeking his remand. 15. The search of the vehicle of the petitioner has taken place at 11:35 p.m. to 2:15 a.m. In the Mahazar, there is a mention of not obtaining Warrant for search and ground of belief are recorded for search after sunset and before sunrise as contained under Section 42 of NDPS Act. The inventory and sampling in the presence of the petitioner as held in the case of BHARAT AAMBALE Supra and in the case of NAGARAJ J @ WILSON GARDEN NAGA (supra) cannot be considered at this stage as no materials are placed on record regarding conducting of inventory and sampling and more so, the investigation is in progress. 16. The contraband seized sent to FSL for examination and the report indicates that, the weight of the sample before examination is 31.78 grams and weight of the sample after examination is 30 grams and it is opined that, the contraband examined is positive for MDMA. Considering the quantity examined i.e., 31.78 grams, it is clear that, the quantity seized from the petitioner is a commercial quantity. 17. Learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that, the quantitative test is underway and he has to receive the report. Merely because, the quantitative analysis has not been done within thirty days as required under Rule 14 of NDPS (Seizure Storage Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, at this stage, it cannot be said that, quantity seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner is not a commercial quantity. Considering the above aspects, the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act applies. It cannot be said at this stage that, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that, he is not involved commission of offence under NDPS and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The investigation is in progress. The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for not less than ten (10) years which may extend to twenty (20) years. The investigation is in progress. The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for not less than ten (10) years which may extend to twenty (20) years. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses. 18. Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of bail. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.