Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the legality of his arrest in connection with an NDPS case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau Mumbai Zonal Unit. The respondents were Union of India through NCB and State of Maharashtra. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to provide flight manifest of Indigo Airlines flight 6E-5292 from Varanasi to Mumbai dated 27 March 2025 and a declaration that his arrest was illegal and violated fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22. By order dated 1 August 2025, the High Court permitted deletion of respondent no.2, rendering the mandamus prayer infructuous. On 3 March 2025, NCB officials seized 7,200 bottles of Codeine Phosphate from one Jayshankar Prasad Phoolchand Gaud and arrested him under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. During investigation, co-accused disclosed that the contraband was meant for Mohammad Husain Khan, and a search of his premises recovered 10,800 Nitrazepam tablets and 120 bottles of Codeine Phosphate. Accused no.2 revealed the substances were supplied by the present petitioner. NCB issued summons under Section 67 of NDPS Act to the petitioner at Varanasi on 27 March 2025. The petitioner claimed he was apprehended at Varanasi on 27 March 2025 at 11:04 am, taken to his shop, compelled to book his own ticket to Mumbai the same day, and then taken to NCB office where his statement was recorded. He contended that it was falsely shown he was arrested on 28 March 2025 at 14:30 hours and produced before the Magistrate on 29 March 2025, and that the arrest and detention were illegal. NCB denied these allegations, stating the petitioner travelled voluntarily from Varanasi to Mumbai pursuant to the summons without coercion, his statement under Section 67 was recorded on 28 March 2025, and he was formally arrested on 28 March 2025 at 14:30 hours and produced on 29 March 2025. The court examined the summons, CCTV screenshots, the voluntary statement recorded under Section 67, and the Memo of Arrest. It found that the summons was served on the petitioner with acknowledgment and he was aware of its purpose. There was no material to show an arrest at Varanasi on 27 March 2025; the CCTV footage from the shop did not show any element of force. The petitioner booked his own flight tickets from Varanasi to Mumbai, which indicated voluntary travel. The court observed that it would have been a different matter had NCB booked his tickets. The statement was recorded at NCB office Mumbai on 28 March 2025, and the Memo of Arrest, duly informing him of the grounds of arrest, recorded his arrest at 17:30 hours on the same date with acknowledgment. He was thereafter produced before the learned Magistrate on 29 March 2025 within 24 hours. The court distinguished the decision in Kaushik R. Thakkar v State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online Bom 1493, relied upon by the petitioner, because in that case the accused was taken into custody at 7.00 a.m. on 16 August 2024 and produced before the Magistrate only the next day, exceeding 24 hours. In the present case, production occurred within 24 hours of formal arrest. The court held that the arrest was carried out in accordance with due process and did not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, rule discharged, and no order as to costs. The court clarified that its observations were limited to detention and would not influence the trial court or affect the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Arrest and Detention - Legality of Arrest and Production Before Magistrate - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 21, 22 - The petitioner alleged arrest at Varanasi on 27 March 2025 and delayed production on 29 March 2025. The court found he was served a summons under Section 67 of NDPS Act, travelled voluntarily and booked his own flight ticket; CCTV did not show force. His formal arrest occurred at NCB Mumbai at 17:30 hours on 28 March 2025 and he was produced before the Magistrate on 29 March 2025 within 24 hours. Held that the arrest was in accordance with due process and not illegal (Paras 5-9). B) Narcotic Drugs - Summons and Statement - Voluntary Compliance with Section 67 Summons - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 28, 29, 67 - The petitioner's travel from Varanasi to Mumbai after receipt of summons was voluntary and his statement was recorded at NCB office on 28 March 2025; no coercive custody at Varanasi was established. The court distinguished that if NCB had booked his tickets the matter may have been different, but the petitioner booked his own ticket (Paras 7-8). C) Precedent - Distinguishing Cases - Application of Kaushik R. Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 21, 22 - The petitioner's reliance on Kaushik R. Thakkar was misplaced because in that case the accused was taken into custody at 7.00 a.m. on 16 August 2024 and produced only the next day at 1.15 p.m./2.50 p.m., exceeding 24 hours; in the present case, production occurred within 24 hours of formal arrest. Held that the factual situation was entirely different and no violation of fundamental rights occurred (Paras 10). D) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Infructuous Prayer After Deletion of Party - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The prayer for writ of mandamus to provide flight manifest of Indigo Airlines did not survive after Respondent No.2 was deleted by order dated 1 August 2025. The court proceeded to decide only the legality of arrest relief (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's alleged arrest on 27 March 2025 at Varanasi and production before the Magistrate only on 29 March 2025 rendered the arrest illegal and violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and whether relief under Article 226 was warranted.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. The court held that the arrest was carried out in accordance with due process and did not suffer from any illegality; observations were limited to detention and would not influence the trial court or affect merits.
Law Points
- Article 21 of Constitution of India
- Article 22 of Constitution of India
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985
- production before Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest
- voluntary travel pursuant to summons is not arrest
- self-booking of ticket indicates absence of coercion
- grounds of arrest must be furnished
- CCTV evidence showing no force
