Introduction:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Sajan Singh v. State of Punjab [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 233], delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional safeguards available to every arrested person, irrespective of the nature of the offence. Justice Surya Pratap Singh held that merely informing a family member about the arrest of an accused does not satisfy the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the grounds of arrest must also be communicated in writing to the relative, friend, or nominated person, enabling them to take timely legal steps for the protection of the accused’s rights. The Court further emphasized that an accused must be provided legal assistance at the time of the first remand, and failure to ensure such representation renders the remand proceedings legally defective.
The case arose from the arrest of Sajan Singh, who was apprehended on 9 February 2026 along with a co-accused in connection with an FIR registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at the Anti-Narcotic Task Force Police Station, Mohali. According to the prosecution, acting on secret information, the police intercepted a vehicle carrying the accused and allegedly recovered 307 grams of heroin. After completing the formalities under the NDPS Act, the police arrested the petitioner and produced him before the Magistrate, where he was remanded to custody.
Aggrieved by the arrest and the remand proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He sought a declaration that his arrest and the remand order were unconstitutional, contending that mandatory procedural safeguards had been ignored. The case required the High Court to examine whether compliance with constitutional protections during arrest is merely procedural or an indispensable requirement that directly affects the legality of detention.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Nikhil Ghai, contended that the arrest was unconstitutional because the mandatory safeguards laid down by the Constitution and the Supreme Court had not been followed. It was argued that although the arrest memo mentioned that information regarding the arrest had been conveyed to the petitioner’s mother over the telephone, the grounds of arrest were never communicated to her in writing. According to the petitioner, merely informing a family member that a person has been arrested is insufficient unless the reasons for the arrest are also disclosed in writing so that the family can immediately arrange legal assistance and challenge the detention if necessary.
The petitioner further submitted that he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate without the assistance of an advocate. He argued that he was neither given an opportunity to engage counsel of his own choice nor provided legal aid by the Court. This omission, according to the petitioner, violated his constitutional right to legal representation and rendered the remand proceedings illegal.
Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s earlier decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab. These judgments, it was argued, clearly establish that communication of the grounds of arrest and the right to legal assistance are mandatory constitutional safeguards that cannot be reduced to empty formalities.
The State of Punjab defended the arrest, submitting that the police had acted in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act after recovering a commercial quantity of heroin from the vehicle occupied by the petitioner. It was argued that the arrest memo clearly recorded that the petitioner’s mother had been informed about his arrest, thereby substantially complying with the legal requirements. The State also relied upon the recovery effected during the investigation to justify the arrest and subsequent remand.
However, the State could not dispute that there was no material on record to show that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the petitioner’s mother in writing or that legal assistance had been ensured at the time of the petitioner’s first remand before the Magistrate.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the arrest and the subsequent police and judicial remand were illegal because the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to the petitioner had been violated.
The Court carefully examined the arrest memo and observed that while it recorded that the petitioner’s mother had been informed telephonically about the arrest, there was nothing to indicate that the grounds of arrest had also been communicated to her in writing. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that Article 22(1) requires not only that the arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest but also that such grounds be communicated to the friend, relative, or nominated person identified by the accused.
Justice Surya Pratap Singh observed that this constitutional safeguard serves a meaningful purpose. The communication of the grounds of arrest enables family members or friends to immediately arrange legal representation, seek bail where permissible, or take appropriate legal remedies to protect the liberty of the arrested individual. Therefore, merely conveying information about the arrest without disclosing the reasons for such arrest does not satisfy the constitutional mandate.
The Court further relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah, which emphasize that procedural safeguards surrounding arrest are fundamental to protecting personal liberty under the Constitution. The Bench reiterated that these safeguards cannot be diluted simply because the allegations involve serious offences under the NDPS Act.
The High Court also found serious irregularities in the remand proceedings. On examining the remand order dated 10 February 2026, the Court noticed that the petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate without being represented by any advocate. The Court held that whenever an accused is produced for remand, legal representation is indispensable. If the accused has not engaged a private lawyer, it becomes the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that a Legal Aid Counsel is provided before passing any order affecting the liberty of the accused.
The Court observed that the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one’s choice is a constitutional guarantee and forms an integral part of the right to a fair procedure under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Since no legal assistance was provided to the petitioner at the crucial stage of the first remand, the remand proceedings themselves stood vitiated.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Delhi v. Ram Avtar @ Rama, reiterating that safeguards enacted for the benefit of an accused are mandatory and must receive strict compliance. Courts cannot treat such safeguards as mere procedural formalities or technical requirements capable of being ignored.
Considering the cumulative effect of these violations, the High Court concluded that both the arrest and the subsequent remand were unconstitutional and therefore liable to be set aside. It declared that the petitioner’s detention stood vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory constitutional requirements and directed that he be released forthwith.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the investigating agency would not be prevented from continuing its investigation. It granted liberty to the police to seek a fresh remand or custody of the petitioner after strictly complying with all constitutional safeguards and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The judgment serves as an important reaffirmation that constitutional protections apply equally in serious criminal cases, including prosecutions under the NDPS Act. By insisting upon written communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused’s nominated relative and ensuring legal representation during remand proceedings, the High Court underscored that procedural fairness is an indispensable component of criminal justice. The decision strengthens the constitutional commitment to personal liberty and reminds investigating agencies and courts that compliance with procedural safeguards is not optional but mandatory.